Any reason why Disco isn't 4K?

[Mage]

Which is why I probably won't replace my (now 7+ year old) Panasonic plasma until it straight craps out. OLED is the only thing with picture quality as good, and I'm not spending that kind of money unless I have to.

Although I'm quite happy with my 800 euro Samsung UHD LED tv, sometimes the lightbleeding is still a thing. I got used to it, and I'm ok with because all brands in this size (49") suffer from it, I do know OLED will be my next tv, unless something better comes along by then.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

After watching my 55" LG C7 OLED I'll never go back to LED/LCD. It's well worth the extra chunk of change (Hell, I paid $2100 for it in October, and cruising the Best Buy website, I notice it's already down to $1600)

 

[lawman]

It depends on screen size and viewing distance... but typically you'd compare native 1080p and native 4k, not upscaled anything.

However, within about 8-10ft, the typical viewing distance in a home, and on a screen 55" and up, you begin to see the differences, even more so at either closer distances, larger screen sizes OR both...

Really? At that distance, the human eye shouldn't be able to make out any difference in pixel resolution.

As for “telling the difference” between a 1080p TV and a 4K TV on a 55” screen at 8-9 feet? You’re not seeing the difference in resolution—no one is. However, the 4K TV has a more sophisticated video processor, likely HDR of some kind and, crucially, a wider colour gamut. Those are the characteristics that make the difference...

Yes. This.

To be clear, I stated that the differences that were slightly noticeable were in clarity/sharpness, not resolution. ... I also never stated that my plasma could or was displaying 4k content; I can see how it sounds like I was implying that, but I was not. ... Unless I stand 4-6' away from a 4k display at a store, or a friends house, I cannot see a significant difference compared to 1080p.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. That makes a bit more sense.

For what it's worth, a 55" diagonal TV is roughly four feet wide (plus bezel). (IMHO that's a behemoth... I have a mirror in my bathroom almost exactly that size, and it takes up most of a wall; I can't imagine wanting a TV that big!... but I know a lot of people subscribe to "bigger is better" when it comes to TVs.) From everything I've read, the optimal viewing distance for a screen that size is roughly 7-12 feet, which seems reasonable.

To make out the difference in resolution on a 4K display, though, one would have to be watching from roughly 4-6 feet away (just as jasonj describes).

Who the hell wants to sit that close to a screen that size (or to any TV, really)? Unless you're the kind of eccentric outlier who likes to sit in the front rows of movie theaters, that's just way too close for comfort!

So. HDR and OLED: I understand the advantages these things bring. 4K, though, I remain convinced is nothing but a marketing gimmick.

 

[Ovation]

Who the hell wants to sit that close to a screen that size (or to any TV, really)?

If one seeks to recreate the viewing angle comparable to sitting roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the distance to a cinema screen, with a 55” TV, you need to be about 5-6 feet from the screen.

I have a 64” screen (with a projector) and I sit 7.5 feet from it. That is roughly the viewing angle from near the last row of a largish cinema. I’ll be putting up a new 85” screen (when I find time to build its frame). That’ll put me in the sweet spot according to THX and STMPE recommendations for replicating the viewing angle of a centred “ideal” seat at the cinema—balancing the immersive experience of “big screen movie watching” with a viewing angle that doesn’t require head movements to see the whole screen at once.

Of course, I have a room dedicated to this purpose. I’d not put an 85” TV or screen in my living room. 50-55” would be as big as I’d want so as to not overwhelm the space in a multi purpose room.

 

[lawman]

You are clearly a dedicated home theater enthusiast.

The THX and SMTPE recommendations tend to put one a bit closer than most others, though, don't they? From what I understand they're designed to facilitate a field of view of roughly 40° (or at max distance, not less than 30°), whereas the more traditional recommendation in a home setting has been 20-30° (hence farther away), has it not? If you're really dedicating a room to trying to replicate the full cinema experience, I guess I can see the point of that, but as you note, it's not something you'd want to do in your living room.

(And even in a dedicated home theater setting, given the smaller scale of the sizes and distances involved as compared to a real cinema, does sitting that close actually allow more than one or two people to watch from an optimum position, without a skewed viewing angle? IOW, how does it work if you're having a movie night with friends?)

 

[Ovation]

You are clearly a dedicated home theater enthusiast.

Quite true. While, among “enthusiasts”, I have a modest setup (especially with my current screen—large for a TV but almost tiny for a projector system—I’ll be entering “the low end of normal” with my new one), among my circle of “people I know in real life”, my system is far and away more sophisticated than anyone else—particularly the audio.

The THX and SMTPE recommendations tend to put one a bit closer than most others, though, don't they? From what I understand they're designed to facilitate a field of view of roughly 40° (or at max distance, not less than 30°), whereas the more traditional recommendation in a home setting has been 20-30° (hence farther away), has it not? If you're really dedicating a room to trying to replicate the full cinema experience, I guess I can see the point of that, but as you note, it's not something you'd want to do in your living room.

It’s 36 degrees as ideal for THX and 30, as I recall, for STMPE, with 26 degrees as the lowest threshold.

(And even in a dedicated home theater setting, given the smaller scale of the sizes and distances involved as compared to a real cinema, does sitting that close actually allow more than one or two people to watch from an optimum position, without a skewed viewing angle? IOW, how does it work if you're having a movie night with friends?)

In my house, I’m the only person who cares about “A/V quality”. My wife would happily live with the 12” SD CRT she had when we got together and is in no hurry to replace the 32”, 200lbs behemoth currently in the living room. There is a nice 2 ch audio setup in the room and she is happy to listen to the music channel via the crappy TV speakers instead. My kids are happy when we watch something in the cinema room but are not too bothered if that’s not an option (I don’t let them in there unsupervised).

The room is small (the 85” screen is as big as I can install, whereas most dedicated rooms have 92-120” screens) and I have privileged the setup for audio (my screen is mounted somewhat higher than ideal because the centre channel speaker’s tweeter is placed at ear height for optimal sound). There is one “ideal seat”, one very good (visually) seat and two good seats.

Ninety percent of the time, I’m the only one in there. When a friend is over, I let him or her have the best seat.

Someday, I would like to move the setup to the larger room in the basement and go with a 100” screen and more optimal seating for others, but for practical purposes, things are fine where they are.

 

[JasonJ]

For what it's worth, a 55" diagonal TV is roughly four feet wide (plus bezel). (IMHO that's a behemoth... I have a mirror in my bathroom almost exactly that size, and it takes up most of a wall; I can't imagine wanting a TV that big!... but I know a lot of people subscribe to "bigger is better" when it comes to TVs.) From everything I've read, the optimal viewing distance for a screen that size is roughly 7-12 feet, which seems reasonable.

To make out the difference in resolution on a 4K display, though, one would have to be watching from roughly 4-6 feet away (just as jasonj describes).

Who the hell wants to sit that close to a screen that size (or to any TV, really)? Unless you're the kind of eccentric outlier who likes to sit in the front rows of movie theaters, that's just way too close for comfort!

So. HDR and OLED: I understand the advantages these things bring. 4K, though, I remain convinced is nothing but a marketing gimmick.

I came from a 27" CRT tv, so when I got it, it was absolutely massive, now it feels just right, if not a touch small- again, we are sitting about 9ft away. I couldnt read tickers or captions or that small informational bar that pops up on History channel shows on the CRT, now I can! lol.

I don't think 4k is a gimmick... the resolution is real and it's there, now the marketing of it might be gimmicky... but really, the only place that 4k matters is on really massively honking huge displays.. 75" and up, and/or at very close viewing distances.

Really, it's not unreasonable to expect that my primary viewing display have a resolution higher than my computer monitor from 10 years ago. And yes, I do realize that I sit 2ft from my monitor and not 9.. but still... (and yes, I just measured it. 24" from my dual 23" 1080p displays).

 

[jefferiestubes8]

It's not only shot in 4K, it's mastered in Dolby Vision HDR with Dolby Atmos audio too.

Do you have a source link for this?

 

[skip bittman]

They wanted to make sure things weren't future-proofed so we can spend years explaining why higher-res releases aren't possible come 2027 or so.

 

[lawman]

In my house, I’m the only person who cares about “A/V quality”. My wife would happily live with the 12” SD CRT she had when we got together and is in no hurry to replace the 32”, 200lbs behemoth currently in the living room. There is a nice 2 ch audio setup in the room and she is happy to listen to the music channel via the crappy TV speakers instead.

Heh! Clearly you either have an extremely tolerant and understanding wife, or ample money to burn, or both! (We should all be so lucky...)

Really, it's not unreasonable to expect that my primary viewing display have a resolution higher than my computer monitor from 10 years ago.

...Whereas my primary viewing display literally is my computer monitor from ten years ago! (But then I'm a grad student, and live in a one-bedroom apartment, so the constraints are different. But it works just fine for me, honestly!... Before I came back to grad school I had a semi-decent home theater setup (for the time), with surround sound and so forth. I thought the transition might be hard, but I honestly haven't missed it.)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

For what it's worth, a 55" diagonal TV is roughly four feet wide (plus bezel). (IMHO that's a behemoth... I have a mirror in my bathroom almost exactly that size, and it takes up most of a wall; I can't imagine wanting a TV that big!... but I know a lot of people subscribe to "bigger is better" when it comes to TVs.) From everything I've read, the optimal viewing distance for a screen that size is roughly 7-12 feet, which seems reasonable.

Bezel, what's that? I have a 55" currently but it's not much bigger space wise than the 46" it replaced due to the reduction of bezels on newer sets.

I used to read all the recommendations and charts and suggestions but I say you just have to experiment and go with what feels comfortable to you. I have said 55" in a small space and I'd go even bigger though I probably need a bigger stand.

Same with 4K, the set is 4K and looks great but I don't see much difference between a good 1080p and a 4K source. I don't know if that's a testament to my set's 1080p scaling, it's handling of 4K or the limitations of my eyesight. Again, go with what your own eyes tell you.

In my house, I’m the only person who cares about “A/V quality”. My wife would happily live with the 12” SD CRT she had when we got together and is in no hurry to replace the 32”, 200lbs behemoth currently in the living room.

I'm shocked how many people will be watching their zoomed in SD channels instead of HD and can't tell the difference.

And everyone thinks I'm insane when I explain how I hate that most channels show movies in a cropped 1.85(1.79 or whatever) aspect ratio. "But there's no black bars, that's widescreen, right?" "No." I guess it's not as obvious as on the old 1.33 sets but some movies were definitely composed and meant to be seen in wider ratios. Interestingly though, Discovery and some Netflix shows use that in-between 2.0 ratio now.

 

[Ovation]

I'm shocked how many people will be watching their zoomed in SD channels instead of HD and can't tell the difference.

I have solved this issue for at least a dozen friends and relatives over the years. Anytime any friend, relative (those I’m in regular contact with) or even acquaintance is contemplating an A/V purchase, I get a call (and frequently set up their gear).

 

[Ovation]

Heh! Clearly you either have an extremely tolerant and understanding wife, or ample money to burn, or both! (We should all be so lucky...)

I don’t have that much money (all my stuff was acquired piece by piece, not all at once, and I’m careful to select things that last a long time). The rest is all true.

I’m also in grad school (other middle aged men buy red sports cars or something when they reach 50–I went back to get a PhD). My wife strongly urged me to do that and made it possible. So yes, I am quite lucky. It’s not entirely unearned—I did resign a full time permanent teaching position to be the stay at home parent, taking on adjunct work on a part-time schedule for 15 years. The “price”, in exchange (as her idea), was her financial contributions to my A/V hobby.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I have solved this issue for at least a dozen friends and relatives over the years. Anytime any friend, relative (those I’m in regular contact with) or even acquaintance is contemplating an A/V purchase, I get a call (and frequently set up their gear).

What I'm saying is people will have an HD cable box with an HD TV all working properly and they will still watch the SD version channels anyway because they don't even notice it's not HD. I'm the only one who has a problem with it as they're perfectly content to keep watching those blurry channels. I suppose I could lock out all those channels or something but again I'm the only one who cares apparently.

 

[Ovation]

What I'm saying is people will have an HD cable box with an HD TV all working properly and they will still watch the SD version channels anyway because they don't even notice it's not HD. I'm the only one who has a problem with it as they're perfectly content to keep watching those blurry channels. I suppose I could lock out all those channels or something but again I'm the only one who cares apparently.

I know what you mean. When I say “fix”, it doesn’t mean it is permanent. I’ve had to do it for my mother in law half a dozen times. She never remembers the HD channels need a 6 or 7 prefix on her cable box. My parents are the same way. In each case they notice a difference and thank me, but forget how to ensure they are on the HD channel and fall back to familiar ways.

People of my generation, once I’ve fixed it, tend to remember.

Totally with you on aspect ratio. It’s why I never use the PPV movie service on my cable box.

 

[JWolf]

I can tell the difference between an upscaled 1080p and true 4k.

Imaging watching a program with plastic wrap on the TV screen. take that off and that's 4K vs 1080. That's with SDR. Even if you don't notice the difference in resolution, the 4K version will be clearer and sharper. When you include HDR to the 4K version, you can get more detail and better colors for even more of a difference. I can easily tell the difference. But 1080/HDR is still not bad. It' better than 1080SDR for sure.

Similar thing happened with Enterprise, it was filmed at 1080p (or higher), but the FX was all done at 720p.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Cut) was made at 480. That's why we don't have it on Blu-ray.

However, I have seen the 4K version of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (Director's Cut) and it looks very good.

 

[JWolf]

It's not only shot in 4K, it's mastered in Dolby Vision HDR with Dolby Atmos audio too. It's not broadcast in 4K because CBS All Access isn't in 4K, and they've likely not allowed Netflix to show it internationally in 4K either. Yet.

Star Trek: Discovery is 1080/Dolby Vision on Netflix. It still looks pretty good. But it would even better at 4K/Dolby Vision.

I think it's not streamed at 4K so CBS can eventually sell UHD Blu-ray.

Actually, I want it for the Special Longer Version of ST:TMP.

That will never happen as that was made in 480.

 

[Jesse1066]

That will never happen as that was made in 480.

The Special Longer Version came out on LaserDisc 35 years ago.

 

[Galaxy]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Cut) was made at 480. That's why we don't have it on Blu-ray.

The problem with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Director's Edition is that Paramount lost all of the new digital material that was created when Foundation Imaging went under. Someone dropped the ball there. The files are not lost completely, since some of the people involved with the project took their work home them, but that is a dicey situation since they were not technically allowed to do that.

 

[thribs]

I thought it was on Netflix. It’s HDR at least.