3 ms·
I very much disagree with the article. I've seen several 4K TVs, and the picture is amazing. From a typical viewing distance, you can easily see the added resol
by Gring 14y ago
I very much disagree with the article. I've seen several 4K TVs, and the picture is amazing. From a typical viewing distance, you can easily see the added resolution, compared to 1080p.
I would go ever further, and say that 4K is still not yet good enough. It looks great, but still not like reality. My guess is that this would need somewhere between 8K and 16K. Contrast and framerates could also be higher.
Sources: my own experience with 4K TVs at IBC 2007 and a recent trip to Japan.
- mjb 14y ago> I would go ever further, and say that 4K is still not yet good enough. It looks great, but still not like reality. Are you sure it doesn't look like reality because of a lack of resolution? The "different from reality" that most people are more likely to notice is the lower contrast, lower dynamic range, restricted color gamut, lack of color accuracy and possibly the lower frame rate.
- Gring 14y agoOh both are needed to improve. But I can discern the issues, and the resolution is not yet good enough, imho. You know, you can get increased contrast in several ways. Switching to plasma (or some other high contrast tech) is one, adding more pixels is another one. I guess the plasma switch is easier in the short run, but in the long run you still need the additional resolution. Cynic people might say that the reason 4K gets promoted now is that the studios want to sell their movies all over again :-)