![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Senecio:
This is 2017. We have access to 4K HDR screens at a relatively affordable cost and many of us have access to >100 Mbit internet.
I can't presently justify 100Mbps internet. I certainly can't justify a 4K TV or monitor. Most people are like this.
While blurry crap bothers me, what annoys me more is crappy framerate conversion with massive judder etc.
While motionplus does a largly ok of fixing up low framerates (24/25/30) it can only do that if it has not been mangled from one into another by the broadcaster conforming it to some antique standard made when TVs had power supplies so crappy that mains ripple got into them so the broadcast had to match.
4% speedup was bad, doubled frames once a second is worse, but the most horrid is the one where they blend frames together. All those make something become totally unwatchable. The frame blending one even looks trash with it in game mode so no interpolation is being done.
Shimmering edges from being downscaled for broadcast, then usually scaled from 480i to 576i with crap conversion of the framerate and then upscale again on the TV makes things look terrible. Take the source 480i 60Hz signal and watch it and it is vastly better. Look at the US sourced news channels for something that looks like trash most of the time because of the needless conversions.
cadman:
Senecio:
This is 2017. We have access to 4K HDR screens at a relatively affordable cost and many of us have access to >100 Mbit internet.
I can't presently justify 100Mbps internet. I certainly can't justify a 4K TV or monitor. Most people are like this.
Understood, but I was careful to choose my words. We have access to them, but each of us has the choice whether we want to invest our hard earned cash or not. Why should those of us who do chose spend our money on the latest tech be held back because others don't/can't?
Senecio:
Understood, but I was careful to choose my words. We have access to them, but each of us has the choice whether we want to invest our hard earned cash or not. Why should those of us who do chose spend our money on the latest tech be held back because others don't/can't?
Uh, I don't get that. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
meanwhile on our 50" 4K tv even sd looks terrific. not sure what it does to the image - if you go near it you see all sorts of artefacts but from viewing distance, clear as anything, unlike our old Full HD tv - feed it anythng other than HD and it will look like it's done a vomit.
cadman:
Senecio:
This is 2017. We have access to 4K HDR screens at a relatively affordable cost and many of us have access to >100 Mbit internet.
I can't presently justify 100Mbps internet. I certainly can't justify a 4K TV or monitor. Most people are like this.
FWIW, i got a 4K 50" very smart tv for 1 thousand dollars.
Rikkitic:Senecio:
Understood, but I was careful to choose my words. We have access to them, but each of us has the choice whether we want to invest our hard earned cash or not. Why should those of us who do choose spend our money on the latest tech be held back because others don't/can't?
Uh, I don't get that. Why does it have to be one or the other?
It shouldn't be one or the other, but it is because broadcasters are allowed to broadcast in SD. My gripe is with the regulators that still allow SD content to be broadcast exclusively. It's 2017, every channel should be available in HD. Broadcast SD simultaneously but regulators should enforce HD.
Going one step further there should also be regulations on bit rate. Low bit rate HD content is an eyesore.
It's not up to the regulators to dictate picture quality to broadcasters, and I can't think why it should be.
Ultimately, if you consider someone is offering a lousy product, don't subscribe or view it. If they don't offer something good enough to retail subscribers/viewers compared to the alternatives, then they will go out of business. That's how the market works.
So is SD actually getting worse or are we being spoiled with HD?
I have noticed sometimes the SD feed feels horrible but I don't recall it ever looking as bad as it does now.
How important is HD, really?
It varies dependant on the viewer/owner.
To me, it's super important, as is surround sound.
That said, content beats visuals alone, but given the opportunity I'd personally pay for HD or 4K versions. eg when I had Sky I paid extra for the HD ticket.
* Your results may vary.
Many people go on about 4k but from what I have been reading, most existing 4k tvs are not compatible with the new HDCP standard so can't play 4k content anyway. How does that work? Can you actually get any 4k content?
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
Can you actually get any 4k content?
Aw come on man, it's 2017
YouTube and Netflix both stream 4K content, when it's available.
YouTube has been doing this for 2 years now, and Netflix for a year or so?
And there are 4K Blurays if you want to pay extra for them. The Xbox One S can play these discs, so a player is quite cheap.
My question was in regard to HDCP. I meant can you get any playable 4K content. I had the impression that many TVs wouldn't do 4k HDCP. Richms answered that.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
ET: "Maybe; you have some freewill, but you chose your path by arrangement"
Me "That sounds like a program with no freewill?"
ET: "We will catch up when you end this cycle"
Me: "Sounds like a 'KPI'!"
ET: "Did you read the terms and conditions?"
Me: .....
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |