5 ms·

I'm sitting about 1.8m away from a 720p television showing a standard definition UK terrestrial signal (which is 576p) and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could

by hanoz 8y ago

I'm sitting about 1.8m away from a 720p television showing a standard definition UK terrestrial signal (which is 576p) and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could want any higher res. In fact the only issue I notice is the poorer picture quality on some of the lower bitrate channels, the major channels are as clear and sharp as I'd ever want.

iainmerrick 8y ago
Have you tried Freeview HD? It honestly looks a lot better, even on a 720p screen. Maybe you don’t care about the difference in quality, and if so that’s totally fine, but it is definitely noticeable.
- hanoz 8y ago
  Although my tele's Freeview decoder is SD I do get to see in all its 'full' 720p glory when using the Chromecast or Blu-ray player, and okay, if pushed I can tell the difference, but I really do not miss it at all when it's not there.
behringer 8y ago
Because details matter. Here's an 8k image on one side and a 576 screen on the other side. https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU Don't forget to blow it up to 8k to see the full effect. Bear in mind, if you're on a 65" screen you have to be at 2 feet to appreciate the image. Unrealistic for most purposes I understand, but at 1080p, you should be at 10 feet which is about normal. 4k should be about 8 feet which is the best viewing distance in my opinion for a theater type room. It is how my theater room is personally laid out. 8k in my opinion is probably as large as any home theater screen will ever need to be. I would not turn up my nose at being able to pause the move and step up to the screen to see some details. I already do that now on my screen.
- willtim 8y ago
  I think the parent point was that there is currently insufficient bandwidth to even make 576p look good for many channels. Given even a high bandwidth slot, 4K with low compression might look better than 8K with high compression. Specifying just "8K", is no guarantee of a quality picture.
NewEntryHN 8y ago
Be it with video or music, any level of resolution/quality is satisfying as long as you never got used to better.
- andai 8y ago
  This! There was an experiment where monkeys received 2 grapes every day. Then for a time they increased it to 3 grapes. Then one day they gave them only 2 grapes again, and the monkeys threw poop at them.
viraptor 8y ago
> I'm honestly baffled how anyone could want any higher res. The may be some learned preferences in here. I will choose 720p or lower given an option. 4k and high fps look just weird for movies. I'm sure the next generation won't understand me here.
- sciurus 8y ago
  4K TVs have some bad image processing details that might be why you don't like them. Motion smoothing in particular is jarring to me. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/lcdtvs/turn-off-these-3-features-in-every-tv https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/lcdtvs/turn-off-these-3-...
  - viraptor 8y ago
    I think it's more the issue of too much detail. Like I'm interested in what the people look like and the story, but once I can count the hairs in their nose, that's just distracting rather than adding to the experience :-)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
ams6110 8y ago
I agree. 720p is good enough. And a 65" screen in a living room is obscene.
- criddell 8y ago
  What about in a home theater setup?
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    its better to have 4k projectors because you can really see the difference but its pretty much only Sony that makes consumer ones and they are super pricey still.
- softawre 8y ago
  I mean, depends where you live. In the midwest we have bigger homes and more room for stuff like that.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Good enough for what/who? I have a 55" 4k OLED and now I find 720p looks very average. Maybe on a smaller screen it doesn't matter but for a larger screen, those pixels matter. Obscene? That's a bit dramatic. I expect my next TV will be 77" or larger. Why not enjoy what you're watching?
crazygringo 8y ago
I mean, it won't add anything to the story... ...but the textures become astounding. Also, long shots of landscapes are so rich with detail as your eye can move around. So for interior shots in an arthouse film, or exteriors in pretty much any film, it's a world apart. For talking heads on the news of course, who cares. I'm so used to 1080p minimum for movies and TV shows that standard definition makes me think I have something wrong with me eyes, it's just blurry. Like I want to focus but it just won't.
nyxtom 8y ago
There is a point where resolutions this high 8K begin to look like you're staring right through a window into another reality. It is a mind boggling huge difference. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=8k+ultrawide https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=8k+ultrawide
brokenmachine 8y ago
Either you have a tiny screen or you should visit an optometrist. 55" 4k TV here and even 1080p is clearly blurry. Watch some movies or documentaries in 4k and it's obvious how much better they look. I recommend Planet Earth II on Bluray.

by hanoz 8y ago

iainmerrick 8y ago

Have you tried Freeview HD? It honestly looks a lot better, even on a 720p screen. Maybe you don’t care about the difference in quality, and if so that’s totally fine, but it is definitely noticeable.

hanoz 8y ago
Although my tele's Freeview decoder is SD I do get to see in all its 'full' 720p glory when using the Chromecast or Blu-ray player, and okay, if pushed I can tell the difference, but I really do not miss it at all when it's not there.

behringer 8y ago

Because details matter. Here's an 8k image on one side and a 576 screen on the other side. https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU Don't forget to blow it up to 8k to see the full effect. Bear in mind, if you're on a 65" screen you have to be at 2 feet to appreciate the image. Unrealistic for most purposes I understand, but at 1080p, you should be at 10 feet which is about normal. 4k should be about 8 feet which is the best viewing distance in my opinion for a theater type room. It is how my theater room is personally laid out. 8k in my opinion is probably as large as any home theater screen will ever need to be. I would not turn up my nose at being able to pause the move and step up to the screen to see some details. I already do that now on my screen.

willtim 8y ago
I think the parent point was that there is currently insufficient bandwidth to even make 576p look good for many channels. Given even a high bandwidth slot, 4K with low compression might look better than 8K with high compression. Specifying just "8K", is no guarantee of a quality picture.

NewEntryHN 8y ago

Be it with video or music, any level of resolution/quality is satisfying as long as you never got used to better.

andai 8y ago
This! There was an experiment where monkeys received 2 grapes every day. Then for a time they increased it to 3 grapes. Then one day they gave them only 2 grapes again, and the monkeys threw poop at them.

viraptor 8y ago

> I'm honestly baffled how anyone could want any higher res. The may be some learned preferences in here. I will choose 720p or lower given an option. 4k and high fps look just weird for movies. I'm sure the next generation won't understand me here.

sciurus 8y ago
4K TVs have some bad image processing details that might be why you don't like them. Motion smoothing in particular is jarring to me. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/lcdtvs/turn-off-these-3-features-in-every-tv https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/lcdtvs/turn-off-these-3-...
- viraptor 8y ago
  I think it's more the issue of too much detail. Like I'm interested in what the people look like and the story, but once I can count the hairs in their nose, that's just distracting rather than adding to the experience :-)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

ams6110 8y ago

I agree. 720p is good enough. And a 65" screen in a living room is obscene.

criddell 8y ago
What about in a home theater setup?
- ekianjo 8y ago
  its better to have 4k projectors because you can really see the difference but its pretty much only Sony that makes consumer ones and they are super pricey still.
softawre 8y ago
I mean, depends where you live. In the midwest we have bigger homes and more room for stuff like that.
brokenmachine 8y ago
Good enough for what/who? I have a 55" 4k OLED and now I find 720p looks very average. Maybe on a smaller screen it doesn't matter but for a larger screen, those pixels matter. Obscene? That's a bit dramatic. I expect my next TV will be 77" or larger. Why not enjoy what you're watching?

crazygringo 8y ago

I mean, it won't add anything to the story... ...but the textures become astounding. Also, long shots of landscapes are so rich with detail as your eye can move around. So for interior shots in an arthouse film, or exteriors in pretty much any film, it's a world apart. For talking heads on the news of course, who cares. I'm so used to 1080p minimum for movies and TV shows that standard definition makes me think I have something wrong with me eyes, it's just blurry. Like I want to focus but it just won't.

nyxtom 8y ago

There is a point where resolutions this high 8K begin to look like you're staring right through a window into another reality. It is a mind boggling huge difference. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=8k+ultrawide https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=8k+ultrawide

brokenmachine 8y ago

Either you have a tiny screen or you should visit an optometrist. 55" 4k TV here and even 1080p is clearly blurry. Watch some movies or documentaries in 4k and it's obvious how much better they look. I recommend Planet Earth II on Bluray.