(04-27-2016, 04:32 PM)BoFox Wrote:

(04-26-2016, 08:51 PM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Netflix says 100 hours of new 4K HDR content is on the way: http://4k.com/netflix-is-dramatically-expanding-its-4k-hdr-content-selection-for-2016-14173-2/

Let's see Amazon Prime try to catch up to Netflix in terms of content and quality ( so many TV shows and movies actually have the ".1" LFE channel for the subwoofer via Netflix on the PS3/PS4 )....   Even the most recent season of Game of Thrones show on HBO Go is barely HD (looks like 720p to me, finally but still nothing like Netflix's 1080p) still does not come with the LFE channel for a true 5.1 output.  The same goes for Hulu's crap. 
However, by judging from this image (from the link in above quote):

Well, well, ......  if I can see the difference on my NON-HDR monitor right now (which is actually a crappy TN color panel that does Gsync), shouldn't filmmakers just compensate for this by using HDR when creating the picture? 
I agree with the post above that it's the OLED display that would make more sense, where blacks aren't "grey".

(04-27-2016, 04:43 PM)BoFox Wrote: BTW, on the left side of the image above, are the trees in the front of the ice cave actually neon blue?  Frosty blue?

(03-16-2016, 04:52 AM)gstanford Wrote: Not at the expense of not being able to see the indvidual pixels.  You haven't really got a 4K display if you can't resolve all of the pixels that make it up.  You have something like a 2K display instead.

(06-07-2016, 02:39 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-readying-a-144-hz-4k-ultra-hd-monitor

(06-07-2016, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-07-2016, 02:39 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-readying-a-144-hz-4k-ultra-hd-monitor

I'm considering getting a 4k tv in July. I don't particularly think I need one but I hate being the last guy on the planet adopting stuff.

(06-07-2016, 05:24 AM)SickBeast Wrote:

(06-07-2016, 04:03 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-07-2016, 02:39 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-readying-a-144-hz-4k-ultra-hd-monitor

I'm considering getting a 4k tv in July. I don't particularly think I need one but I hate being the last guy on the planet adopting stuff.

What kind of tv are you looking at getting? I want one too but there is still very little content. I want it mainly for the PC uses.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

(06-08-2016, 03:03 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Just make sure that the tv has hdr. I don't see it on the Sony one you linked to.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

(06-08-2016, 08:29 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-08-2016, 03:03 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Just make sure that the tv has hdr. I don't see it on the Sony one you linked to.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

You may be right on this one SB, but I doubt I'll get one of the HD Premium sets.

Might get a last years Sony like this one:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/Sony_xbr65x850c_Class_64_5_diag_4K_Ultra_HD_TV_1008626.html?l=Google&gclid=CjwKEAjw4dm6BRCQhtzl6Z6N4i0SJADFPu1naCKmuo_xnd0nQBtebLS2LebzB6VuLCMd3Xspo4gDZxoC7Kvw_wcB

I've read it supports HD Premium spec for color gamut and black level, but not brightness. Too many expenses these days with move,  not enough bang for buck on HDR.

(06-09-2016, 12:04 PM)BoFox Wrote: HDR, baby, HDR!!!

Or OLED at least!!  

55" is an "ok" size, if you like to sit kind of close to it (for a small room), so just go for a bigger one as well, if you can.  I'm telling you, my old 65" does feel small now compared to my 100".  

(06-11-2016, 08:09 AM)BoFox Wrote: LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

(06-09-2016, 12:04 PM)BoFox Wrote: HDR, baby, HDR!!!

Or OLED at least!!  

55" is an "ok" size, if you like to sit kind of close to it (for a small room), so just go for a bigger one as well, if you can.  I'm telling you, my old 65" does feel small now compared to my 100".  

(06-12-2016, 10:45 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-11-2016, 08:09 AM)BoFox Wrote: LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

If prices are the same next month as this month, I'll probably be buying a 65", 4K, no HDR and looking for a true 120Hz panel. (like the XBR65810C)

I'm not competing with anyone on the house. Stayed with "either wife or I can afford" model to maximize economic security.

Don't want to end up like this guy if one of us can't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxXHEx-XnU

(06-13-2016, 08:57 AM)BoFox Wrote: WOW - a true 120Hz panel!!!!!!!!!   Thanks for sharing this model to me - I'm reading the reviews on this now and seeing if it's worth buying before the summer vacation!  We plan on going to FL for 3 weeks, and camping for at least 2 weeks (hopefully 3 weeks as well).  

I can't believe that there's finally a big-screen TV that is actually handling true 120Hz!!!

(06-13-2016, 08:57 AM)BoFox Wrote: LOL, if I spent $100K on a TV, that would mean I'd be "TRULY RICH"!!!  Didn't I make it clear that I was not?!?  I can't even afford a millionaire's home!  

Yeah, it's a projector.  Viewsonic 3D-capable projector that supports 3D Blu-ray movies (and Nvidia 3DVision).  It has a 1:1 1080p pixel output that is so sharp that I can clearly see the individual pixels from several feet away.  The black levels aren't perfectly black like with an OLED, let alone a VA screen, but isn't much worse than an IPS or a TN LCD screen.  The contrast ratio is almost just as good at Regal or Cinemax cinemas theater - it's not much different, really.  If I painted my walls black (for zero reflection), then it would probably be identical, LOL.  

As I got used to it, it doesn't feel that "WOW" anymore.  Like when I just upgraded from say, 32" to 65" several years ago, I felt "WOW" for a while, and then got used to it.  So it's all relative, I guess.  That's why rich people (not that I'm rich) aren't much happier than poor people.  

(06-12-2016, 10:45 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-11-2016, 08:09 AM)BoFox Wrote: LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

If prices are the same next month as this month, I'll probably be buying a 65", 4K, no HDR and looking for a true 120Hz panel. (like the XBR65810C)

I'm not competing with anyone on the house. Stayed with "either wife or I can afford" model to maximize economic security.

Don't want to end up like this guy if one of us can't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxXHEx-XnU

WOW - a true 120Hz panel!!!!!!!!!   Thanks for sharing this model to me - I'm reading the reviews on this now and seeing if it's worth buying before the summer vacation!  We plan on going to FL for 3 weeks, and camping for at least 2 weeks (hopefully 3 weeks as well).  

I can't believe that there's finally a big-screen TV that is actually handling true 120Hz!!!

(06-16-2016, 06:40 AM)SickBeast Wrote: You sound like you have a lot of money.  Same thing with ocre.

Projectors are great if you watch TV in your basement.  For people like me with a very bright living room, however, they are not a good option.  I don't want to keep my curtains closed all the time either.

Why do you guys want 120hz?  Is 60fps really not enough for you?  Does 120hz really make that much difference?  Also, what kind of insane GPU setup are you going to use to drive modern games at 4k resolution at 120fps?  apoppin recently wrote an article that showed that SLI and Crossfire do not scale well at all in newer games.

(06-17-2016, 03:42 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Will it take a full 120hz input over HDMI 2.0 at full 4k resolution at 4:4:4 chroma though?  Can HDMI 2.0 even handle that?

(06-16-2016, 06:40 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Why do you guys want 120hz?  Is 60fps really not enough for you?  Does 120hz really make that much difference?  Also, what kind of insane GPU setup are you going to use to drive modern games at 4k resolution at 120fps?  apoppin recently wrote an article that showed that SLI and Crossfire do not scale well at all in newer games.

(06-20-2016, 06:15 PM)SickBeast Wrote: Rollo...don't get caught up on one particular brand or model.  Check Slickdeals regularly.  I saw a 65" LG 4k HDR TV on there about two weeks ago for $999USD.

Maybe check this one out:

http://slickdeals.net/f/8832675-65-samsung-un65ju6400fxza-4k-uhd-smart-led-hdtv-1000-free-s-h?src=catpagev2

I have seen better deals though.

(06-21-2016, 05:45 AM)SickBeast Wrote: The TV got a good review, particularly for gaming:

http://ca.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ju6400

However it's of no use to you because it can't do 4:4:4 chroma at 4k at 60hz.

You should check SlickDeals though.  I'm not fussy about TVs.  I don't notice much difference at all between a low end and a high end model aside from the price.  Oftentimes a low end TV will have the same panel as a high end model from a different brand.

Quote:This isn't a good TV for watching movies in a dim room. The contrast is very low and the blacks will appear gray. The TV also has judder on 24p sources (like Blu-ray) and doesn't have any fancy features like 3D, local dimming, or HDR.

Quote:And just to add to that, for displays that actually get reasonably close to an expanded space, we certainly test for that. See our iPad Pro 9.7" review for an example of that.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

(06-21-2016, 07:23 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Keep in mind the fact that many LG 4k TVs are not actually 4k.  Something about a fourth sub-pixel.

(06-21-2016, 05:01 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:And just to add to that, for displays that actually get reasonably close to an expanded space, we certainly test for that. See our iPad Pro 9.7" review for an example of that.

Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

(06-22-2016, 02:16 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Contrast ratio is just one spec.  OLED and Plasma lovers go on and on about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread, but it's just one aspect of picture quality.  LED TVs have other advantages over both of those technologies.  I don't know who in their right mind would pay 6x as much just to get a better contrast ratio and deeper blacks.  It seems crazy to me.

(06-21-2016, 05:01 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

Quote:Greyscale, gamma and colours were a mess on the RGBW TV, presumably due to a mismatch between the incoming RGB video signal and the RGBW subpixel structure. In particular, colour luminance was impossible to get right on the sample we tested.

Quote:We watched a variety of material including our reference Blu-ray films on both the calibrated RGBW and RGB LED televisions, and consistently found the colours and tonality on the RGBW set to not look quite right, with skin tones in particular appearing pasty fairly frequently.
...
We’re confused by the purpose of an RGBW LED LCD TV. Yes, it can resolve 3840 pixels horizontally and 2160 pixels vertically (though not both at the same time), but that’s beside the point. The diluting effect of the additional white subpixel damages colour fidelity irreparably: by trying to shoehorn RGB video signals into an RGBW matrix, colour information is lost, and users will never be able to enjoy movies in the manner intended by the director.

(06-23-2016, 06:35 PM)BoFox Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 05:01 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote: Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

This white subpixel that supposedly doubles the brightness does so at a cost, putting colors and gamma all out of whack.  I'd avoid this brightness boost like the plague, if I don't want mucked-up colors. 

Quote:Greyscale, gamma and colours were a mess on the RGBW TV, presumably due to a mismatch between the incoming RGB video signal and the RGBW subpixel structure. In particular, colour luminance was impossible to get right on the sample we tested.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/rgbw-201510084189.htm

Quote:We watched a variety of material including our reference Blu-ray films on both the calibrated RGBW and RGB LED televisions, and consistently found the colours and tonality on the RGBW set to not look quite right, with skin tones in particular appearing pasty fairly frequently.
...
We’re confused by the purpose of an RGBW LED LCD TV. Yes, it can resolve 3840 pixels horizontally and 2160 pixels vertically (though not both at the same time), but that’s beside the point. The diluting effect of the additional white subpixel damages colour fidelity irreparably: by trying to shoehorn RGB video signals into an RGBW matrix, colour information is lost, and users will never be able to enjoy movies in the manner intended by the director.

Fuck the white light boost that fucks it up all for marketing purposes!

Quote:The raw picture quality of this 4k TV is pretty great, making it a good choice for watching movies. The blacks are good and the colors not too far off by default.

It doesn't have any fancy features (local dimming, extended color gamut, 3D), but unless you plan to be an early adopter of HDR content, it doesn't really matter.