How much difference is there between Blur Ray and 4k?

in short... 4k is largely a gimmick. if there is a difference you likely need a massive sized TV. i definitely would not pay more for 4k over typical 720p/1080p.

even x264 720p/1080p (ripped from Bluray disc) are pretty much the same and going to the actual blu-ray is not much of a difference as there is more grain etc. like i can notice it, but it's not much.

basically i am happy with 720p x264 releases made from a BluRay disc.

or look at it like this... it's pretty safe for me to say the difference from DVD to Bluray is bigger than Bluray to 4k. like going from SD to HD is noticeable unlike 720p/1080p to 4k which is pretty much the same.

salomonj



Well without doing research... just off the top of my head as a general guideline stick to the brand names (LG/Samsung etc) and you can't really go wrong. decent TV's (say 40 something to 50 inch range or so(which is what i assume the vast majority of those who have a TV are in this size range)) are quite cheap nowadays especially if your not looking for anything monster sized (i.e. 60"+).

hell, i got a LG 43" 1080p TV (model = 43LF5400) in May 2016 (mfg date of TV is Jan 2016) for only $222.59 total (only catch is it's refurbished(there is some slight scuffs on the legs etc but the TV itself is good and for what i paid it's a lot of TV for a small price and a big upgrade over my previous TV)) which was a huge upgrade over the old style TV (25-27") i had as now i got the LG connected to my computer through the HDMI port (with a 15-20' HDMI cable) and now i can play anything my computer can play onto that in full screen. sorta like a dual monitor setup as i load up a video/movie and then drag it(with my mouse) over to the TV side of things and then run it full screen and can do 1080p or SD etc. basically 720p and 1080p look the same on my TV (and i would assume just about all other TV's with the same setup) which is why i just go 720p to save hard drive space.

so i guess it just depends on how much $$$ you want to spend but personally you don't need to spend a ton of $$$ on a decent TV nowadays as you could get a solid TV for probably no more than $500-600, give or take, as off the top of my head, i would guess that $500-600 range is probably the sweet spot for cost vs TV size/quality etc. i just can't see spending more than about $1k on a TV nowadays as it makes no sense to me to drop $2k+ on a TV because you can get something strong enough for a fraction of the price of those super high end TV's and they probably ain't all that much worse than the high end ones. but if you got $$$ to burn then cost won't be a concern for most people but i tend to talk more with the average type of person mindset.

also, i typically lower the brightness etc as i would assume this will extend TV life simply because the LED's are not running at full brightness etc and that should extend their life. but i guess if you got $$$ to burn or change your TV fairly often (say maybe once every five years or something) then this probably won't matter much to you. but personally i don't plan on upgrading my TV for the foreseeable future as ill likely have my current TV for 10+ years as i just can't see something being THAT much better than it to justify the costs. sure, a bigger TV would be nice as i only have a 43" but at the same time 43" is not small though either as like i was saying above i would assume the common household, at least from my best guess, probably has anywhere in the 40 something to 50"-ish range of TV. and another thing... i think you can only increase TV size to a certain point before it would become a negative thing because after a certain point the TV will look too big for the common household etc. just off the top of my head... i can't really imagine the average household wanting/needing a TV more than say roughly a 60 something inch range as i seen 60" TV's and they are quite large so unless your sitting fairly far away from them those are easily large enough in my opinion to where upgrading those would not be worth it unless you start seeing solid advances in technology to noticeably increase the image quality which while i figure it will eventually happen it's going to take quite a few years etc.

p.s. i am not saying 4k is bad or anything, it's just not really worth the premium price for it is all.

i never been a fan of a projected image as it's too soft looking and lacks sharpness vs your typical decent TV with say a bluray player etc.

but i guess there are people out there who feel a bigger TV is better but for me once a TV reaches a decent size, which pretty much any modern TV's are, i am more concerned about image quality.

ghostintheshell



and not to mention the storage space 4k will take up vs typical HD content. that's just another nail in 4k's coffin in my mind.



i doubt there would be any significant difference even with a proper setup. like i am confident we won't see the leap like we did from SD to HD with HD(720p/1080p) to 4k. 4k is pretty much a gimmick in my mind but they gotta keep pushing it to convince the general public to keep on buying newer TV's and other new tech.

even if by the chance i am wrong and there is a solid improvement... you probably need some super high end TV to notice it. so basically 4k won't be replacing the typical HD (720p/1080p) anytime soon as it's going to take years for those TV's to drop to a reasonable price range for the more common person to buy one.

4k honestly isn't that much of an improvement.

In act it's even misnamed. TV resolutions have always been described by the depth of the screen in lines. Ordinary HD was 1080 lines, and 4k is so called because it makes you think it's four times as many. But 4k is the width - the depth is only 2160, twice normal HD.

On a normal TV HD is perfectly fine at any size, and a 65 inch TV with HD images would look fine. The step up to 4k is going to be hardly noticeable - especially since there's not much actual 4k content to show on it anyway, so even if you buy a 4k screen you're mostly going to be watching HD images on it. 

That said, if you're looking to buy a brand new TV then you'll likely end up with a 4k anyway, since most TVs are that today.

CoolJGS☺



That's one of my general points... how much bigger can TV's get before they are TOO big for the average household?

i am not exactly sure where one would draw the line in terms of inches of the TV but i can't imagine it going more than the 70-80 inch range or so as even 60" TV's, of which i see a fair amount, are still pretty big to where i can't see many people thinking to themselves, 'this TV is too small, i need a bigger one'. even with a 50"+ is still a solid sized TV as i would even say a 40 something inch is still a respectable size (like not large, but decent size) as i think it's only once you go under 40 something inch is what people could say is a bit small, especially for a main TV. like i already mentioned, i got a 43" and while i would not mind a bigger TV it's not something i am in a hurry to get. i know some people with 60" TV's and while you can definitely notice the size difference from my 43" it's not like i dread going back to my 43" as i feel the size of my TV is large enough to where it's not a real issue for me especially given i view my TV within 5-10 feet typically as it's more towards 5 feet or so when i watch movies but more casual watching it can be as much as 10 feet or so.

so from my perception of TV sizes i would pretty much say this and has been for a while now...

-30 something inch and smaller = small (10 years (maybe 15 years) ago 30 something inch TV's might have been more on the decent/standard-ish side of things but lately it seems they would be on the smaller side of things)

-40 something inch = decent/standard-ish (i would expect the majority of TV's here in America to be generally in the 40 something inch range, especially for someones main TV. if i am wrong, i got to be pretty close either way.)

-50 something inch = large (i would imagine the easy majority of people out there probably don't have a TV larger than 50-ish inches so basically anything 50's would be more on the larger side of things)

-60 something inch and larger = huge (so 60"+ would be on the small size of the huge TV's and goes up from there)

but anyways... makes me wonder if 4k will be more noticeable once you get those more monster sized TV's? ; plus, i imagine there are probably quality differences between brands a bit to like if you get a brand name large expensive TV i would figure that has the best chance of 4k being noticeable over typical HD stuff. but even here i would still need to see it with my own eyes as i would still be a bit surprised if there is any larger gap in quality between your typical HD thing vs a 4k video. but lets just say that 4k is good on those super large TV's etc... it will likely be many more years from now before those types of TV's become more standardized which likely means 4k is largely a gimmick for most people for the foreseeable future.

CoolJGS☺



Agreed that viewing distance matters (as obviously no one can question this as it's easy to test) but when i say what i say i just assume someone is close enough to it for maximum image quality (say within a couple of feet to eliminate this from the equation) as i would imagine pretty much with any modern TV (i.e. say 40 something inches or larger) if your within 5 feet or so (maybe 10 tops) that should be pretty much good enough without nit picking over the details.



given my particular setup/testing i would disagree with that.

based on my testing which is... take a random scene released movie (made from Bluray disc) and 720p vs 1080p look the same (at least on my 43" LG 1080p TV(mfg date Jan 2016) connected to my PC using a 15-20' HDMI cable) on the same movie and i tested it up close to the TV to eliminate viewing distance issues. with that said... when comparing a 720p/1080p scene release to a actual bluray disc i can notice it(tested on the movie Friday (1995)), at least on the 60" TV i tested it on a while ago as it's mainly more grain etc. but even here, it's nothing significant but i can notice it. but strictly between a 720p vs 1080p, both scene rips from bluray, they look the same (at least on my setup). so i tend to stick with 720p because of the smaller file size.

maybe a super large TV there is a noticeable difference between properly made 720p vs 1080p? ; or maybe you got a different type of setup(?) etc.

p.s. but there are some people who claim to see a difference when they really can't, at least in some cases. sorta like how some claim they can tell(hear) the difference between FLAC(lossless) and MP3/AAC(lossy) audio files but when you do a blind test using Foobar2k's ABX extension (say try it 15 times correctly etc) you can test to see if you really can hear the difference with varying bit rates (doing that on myself i can tell the difference but only til a certain bit rate which could vary a bit from person-to-person). i am willing to bet the VAST majority of people won't be able to tell the difference between a v2 MP3 (i.e. 190kbps average) and the FLAC file even though some will claim they can and while some genuinely can i can't see many being able to notice it, at least not easily. so basically at least as far as audio goes i am sure there are quite a few who claim they can hear a difference but when put to a true test they will find out they can't notice it like they thought they could.



my question to you is... does that pretty much apply to all 4k TV's or just some high $$$ 4k TV's?

but speaking of frame rate... going from your typical 24-30fps to 50-60fps is easily noticeable there as everything just moves much more fluid but it's not a increase in visual quality, just in smoothness of movement. so in terms of movies... i am not aware of anything outside of the usual 24-30fps so this is pretty much not a issue with movies (even though it would be noticeable had they used it).

On my oled streaming 4K is only slightly better quality than blu ray (non 4K) in most cases. Both are remarkable though.