is it stupid to buy a 1080p TV over 4K in this day and age?

>>61768760
Imo the only pro of having a 4k tv is playing video games on it (but you need to check the latency).

File: 420vs444.png (353KB, 609x334px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 609x334px

No, in fact it's the smartest thing you can do right now.

4K video is actually 1080p video because of chroma subsampling.

Wait until 8K movies become popular.

>>61768854
>4K video is actually 1080p video because of chroma subsampling.

Can I get a rundown bon this? I thought I was crazy to think that there wasn't much of a difference.

>>61768984
*On

File: 444p_420p_difference_test.png (410KB, 702x800px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 702x800px

>>61768984
our eyes aren't as sensitive to changes in color vs. grayscale so yuv420p video takes advantage of this by preserving the grayscale quality of the image rather than the chromatic quality in order to save space. yuv444p preserves both equally so you don't get nearly as much color bleed but the video takes up twice as much space (somebody correct me if im wrong because i'm just regurgitating something i heard here months ago).

>>61768984
>>61769012
Basically raw uncompressed video is fucking huge. With a typical 2 hour movie over 1,200 GB. So we apply lossy video encoding to that raw video to squeeze the size down to 15-30GB you see on blu-ray discs. One way such huge compression is achieved is by resizing the color information of the video because most people are ass and distinguishing those subtle differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncompressed_video

>>61768760
Yes. You miss out on 10-bit, HDR, and a bunch of other memepv tier settings that 1080 sets don't have.

>>61769168
None of that shit is gonna un-chroma subsample your video.

>>61768760
Just bought a TCL p605 4k tv shit is so cash. Use it as a monitor with 444 chroma

where can I buy a 1080p 42" HDR OLED in Australia?

>>61769211
Does not exist

>is it stupid to watch 1080p anime on a 4k screen
yes buzz off jew worshiping consumerist

>>61769229
fug, I want a OLED for my cupboard

File: 350px-Bayer_pattern_on_sensor_profile.svg.png (7KB, 350x224px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x224px

>>61768854
Not just chroma subsampling.
But also Bayer sensors.

Each pixel only consists of one measured color, the other two colors are interpolated from adjacent pixels.

For a perfect 4K image you indeed need an 8K sensor.

>>61769146
>over 1,200 GB
shiieeeet

how do the studios store them

I have a 4k tv but can't tell the difference

>>61769182
>>61768854
So what you're saying is that 1080p TVs are more like 480p because of chroma subsampling? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

>>61769276
it's more like the color is 480p upscaled and applied to 1080p grayscale if it uses 4:2:0, which most compressed video does.

>>61769252
You realize 1.2TB is just a small hard drive?
It's nice and compact compared to the film days.

They used to have entire rooms full of 35mm film reels.

>>61769258
Because broadcasts are only in 1080p at best, idiot.

>>61769320
In other words 4K does have a significant advantage over 1080. Shot yourself in the foot there bud.
>>61769239
And that's what demosaicing is there for idiot.

>>61769276
He's talking about the data, not he hardware.

When you watch a "4K" movie on an 1080p screen you will get close to perfect 1080p.

When you watch "4K" movie on a 4K screen it's barely better than the one on the 1080p screen.

>>61769385
So it sounds like a 4k screen is more future proof.

>>61769385
>When you watch "4K" movie on a 4K screen it's barely better than the one on the 1080p screen.
Are you retarded?

I don't see the point in "High Definition" since our eyes only see in 480p.

>>61769372
And what, pray tell, do you think "demosaicing" is if not the interpolating process I just explained?

(In b4 it magically creates extra information out of thin air.....)

>>61768760

The only time it's worth buying a 4k TV is if your going to use it as a monitor.

Until there's 4k TV's with ATSC 3.0 tv tuners built it, and there's OTA channels with 4k content, then there's no point in buying a 4k tv.

And 4k OTA tv won't happen for at least another 3 years or so.

>>61769385
And how are you gonna input a 4K signal into a 1080p screen smartass?

>>61769440
But what about UHD Blu-rays?

>>61769396
Sure, once 8K movies are common you will benefit from a 4K screen over 1080p.

But if you pay 4 times more for 4K today.
And by the time 8K is common you can buy a 4K screen for the same price.
Then it's still 50% cheaper to buy a 1080p today and upgrade to 4K in the future.

>itt
>throwing money at stupid shit you won't notice the difference of

>>61769483
t. poorfag that doesn't understand how video works

>>61769452
Are you trolling or actually a tech retard?

In case not trolling: your video player converts the compressed movie (with chroma subsampling) into an uncompressed RGB signal (without chroma subsampling).

>>61769406
>If you watch a 1080p movie on a 4k screen, it's 4 times worse than on the 1080p screen

>>61769505
>t. pleb who wastes his life watching other people's life

>>61769406
Funny how stupid cunts who can't even form an argument always call others "retarded".

Go kill yourself and rid us from your ignorance.

>>61769505
>I'm a dumb dumb lol look at me!

>>61769427
>our eyes only see in 480p

The human visual system is not analogous in any way to video.

>>61769515
Good luck watching a 4K bluray on a 1080 screen dumbass
>>61769558
Not an argument

>>61768760
As 4k gets more popular 1080p gets cheaper. At the same time most movies are still released in 1080p, streaming usually maxes at 1080p, and most videos on the internet are <= 1080p. Nows is a great time to buy a 1080p television to use now and horrible time to buy a 4K TV unless you actually have 4k content to watch.

File: Fig-5-1-Letter-m-in-italic-2-whole-pixel-rendered-m-with-jagged-edges-3.png (90KB, 315x333px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 315x333px

>>61769239
Nope, every pixel has rgb subpixels (sometimes with yellow or white as well)

>>61768854
The UHD Bluray spec can use 444 tho.

File: serveimage.jpg (60KB, 512x270px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 512x270px

>not being part of the quattron master race

File: Pacific Rim[HDR-2160p-DTSHD].mkv 00_06_23.091.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>61769581
>>61769452
>Being this retarded.
See pic related,4k bluray downscaled to 1080p

>>61769680
>RGBY
it's a meme

>>61768854
Arri cams (most popular for movies) can shoot up to 6K 12-bit 4:4:4 which is then downsampled 10-bit 4:4:4 on 4K blurays. RED cams do similar. RED also has cams that can shoot 6K/8K. This isn't even an argument.
>>61769706
Looks like shit dude

File: 264767411.jpg (74KB, 690x920px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 690x920px

They have been shouting for more than 10 years now that 4k is the new big thing yet 4k is still overpriced and has worse quality than 1080p. Literal garbage

File: Pacific Rim[HDR-2160p-DTSHD].mkv 00_15_08.698.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>61769762
Current 4K blurays are 4:2:0 retard.
The 4K blurays support 4:4:4 but no movie has use it.

>>61768760
no. you cant tell 4k from 1080 at normal view distance. its great because you can get a cheap pc monitor tho.

>>61769123
Feels confy to be colorblind
I am don't need a meme 4k to watch cable TV broadcast as hd

>>61769252
they dont. cameras record compressed.

>>61769834
btw my tv, 40 inch 3m sitting distance impossible to distinguish 720 from 1080

1. how much 4k content do you want to consume?
2. do you have the internet speeds required to stream 4k content?
3. do you have a data cap?
If
1. a lot
2. yes
3. no
then yeah, buy one.

>>61769629
Every SCREEN pixel has 3 subpixels.

Every BAYER SENSOR pixel has just 1 color.

All I'm saying is you need a SENSOR that has at least as many subpixels as your SCREEN.
A "4K" camera has only 1/3rd the pixels of a 4K screen.

>>61769873
Cinema cams shoot 12-bit RAW

>>61769406
Neck yourself

>>61769992
Good argument

Don't buy a 4K tv just to have a new TV.

If you have a 1080p TV that works then keep it.
If your TV broke, then buy a 4K one.


If you want a 4K tv then wait until there is more content (or content you want in 4K) before you buy

>>61769801
Because no standard supports it? Dolby Vision is 12-bit 4:2:2. HDR10 is 10-bit 4:2:0.

File: 32067.jpg (57KB, 480x250px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x250px

Nobody's impressed by a puny 60" screen

>>61769651
But it doesn't senpai. And like anon said above 4K camera = 1080p real resolution.

>>61769873
>cameras record compressed.

Serious productions record lossless compressed.

>>61770120
So what you're saying is 4K 12-bit 4:4:4 RAW from the camera is just 1080p? Wow I never knew that.

File: demosaicing.jpg (511KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1000x600px

>>61770150
>4:4:4
>raw

That does not exist.

Raw would be just one 12 bit value per pixel, either red, green or blue.
4:4:4 is what you get after demosaicing.

>>61768760
No because 4K TVs are telescreens.

>>61768760
There's no such thing as a good 1080p TV. Maybe a 10 year old plasma.

File: 1428628236420.gif (996KB, 150x148px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 150x148px

>spending exorbitant amounts of money on an unnecessary luxury tech item that will be reasonably priced within a few years
>"is this a good idea guys??"

Not at the moment because there is hardly any 4K content and the prices are crazy. Unless you want it for gaming or for future proofing then sure get one, but I would give it a year for when the prices start to hopefully drop

File: tv price.jpg (302KB, 2016x1013px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 2016x1013px

>>61770450
prices are coming down rather quick.

But I agree content is lagging.

are there any 4k movies or tv shows? if yes are there more than 10 that are worthy? do you plan on watching the same stuff on repeat just cause its 4k?

The only reason to buy a 1080p in the current year would be used or if you didn't want to be apart of the botnet and needed a dumb TV. Honestly 4k TV's are pretty cheap at this point so there's no reason not to get one.

>>61769798
dude nobody was talking about 4k that heavily 10 years ago. 2013 was when 4k really started to be sold. Sort of like how 1977 was when the PC really started even though other products existed years before.

>>61770025
Glad I still have 1080p TV here. Internet fucking sucks for a ridiculous price. There's no way I could stream/download 4K content that could keep up with the speed. 1080p is fine.

its makes sense to buy 4k now if you need a new tv for a couple of reasons

1) most people who buy a tv, buy one to last at least 5+ years, so long term the 4k content landscape is only getting larger
2)everyday more and more companies push towards 4k from game consoles to cameras to 4k blu rays, more and more companies sign on to expand every day
3) when looking for a good quality T.V. in the current landscape, the only ones that offer good specs such as high refresh rates, HDR, Dolby vision, and other color and contrast enhancements are going to be found only in 4k tvs.
4) the prices are very solid. I dont know why people are still pushing the "4k is expensive" you can get good quality vizios or TCL's for under 500 in the 50 inch size range. However i would recommend a good Sony above that

Heres what i would recommend

Budget Tier
https://www.amazon.com/TCL-55S405-55-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B01MTGM5I9/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1502065379&sr=1-2&keywords=tcl

Mid tier
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/vizio-55-class-54-64-diag--led-2160p-with-chromecast-built-in-4k-uhd-home-theater-display-with-high-dynamic-range-black/5762814.p?skuId=5762814


High Tier
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55-class-54-6-diag--led-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/5748209.p?skuId=5748209

Money is no object tier
Option 1

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-55-class-54-6-diag--led-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/5754302.p?skuId=5754302

option 2
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55-class-54-6-diag--oled-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/5770951.p?skuId=5770951

File: 1408935149551.png (70KB, 391x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 391x400px

Where are you supposed to get the legal 4k media from? Physical media is dying, streaming doesn't have the bandwith to deliver full scale in most clapistan, downloading isn't going to fast even with compression.

>>61771512
>Physical media is dying
Nice meme. Get an XBOX ONE S and enjoy UHD Blu-ray. Physical is still the best way.
>streaming doesn't have the bandwith to deliver full scale in most clapistan
Only in rural shitholes. You can stream with 25Mbps.
>downloading isn't going to fast even with compression.
wat

>>61771473
What options are there for TVs without any (Or easily disabled/bypassed) 'smart' tv applications? I've had to interact with several smart tvs and they always blow ass.

>>61771620
from my experience about every 4k tv i have seen is smart. I would say roku TV's, Samsung, and Sony have decent smart TV's. The vizio kinda of sucks for that so i might steer clear of that model. In terms of disabling i haven't had too much experience. Only thing i can tell you is i have a sony mart 4k tv and feel the smart TV is relatively advance and not too cumbersome. Though i do feel that the TV can be slow at changing inputs and turning on.

>>61771620
Damnit. Whenever I've had to use one, they're always so finnicky and annoyingly slow to do anything. There's got to be someplace to buy a display panel without shitty annoying firmware. Probably way expensive though.

Not fundamentally, no, but you will most likely be getting an older TV or a shitty panel since all the manufacturers have been pushing 4K for several years. Even the budget stuff from good companies is 4K these days and if it isn't, there's a good chance it's scrap heap shit.

http://www.rtings.com is a fantastic resource when looking at TV stuff by the way.

>>61771610
>UHD Blu-ray
The problem with UHD is some of the source material was never in 4K to begin with.

Some mad max scenes were shot in 1080 for example
arrival's source is 2.8K
but not every movie fakes it, rogue one is real 4K

>>61768854
>4K video is actually 1080p video because of chroma subsampling.

1080p also has subsampling, which would "make it 720p" in your parlance.

>>61771917
Still higher quality, still an advantage with HDR.

>>61771610
>Xbox One S.

Can you schill any harder?

>>61771512
I don't live in cucked clapistan, I have 1gbps internet.

>>61772146
>schill
can you spell any dumber?

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-06 at 18.20.56.png (212KB, 1066x884px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1066x884px

>>61772146

anime is only in 720p so what's the point of 4k tv?
maybe 4k monitor for games is good with gsync but tv is sily

>>61769238
You're not gonna get a 1080p HDR OLED.

Why do you want HDR OLED for a cupboard tv?

>>61771957
Pretty much, ye. Unless you can find raw RGB uncompressed 1080p video.

i'd take a 1080p OLED over a 4K "LED" LCD tv anyday
there's much more to quality than just the number of pixels

>>61772611
basically all consumer video 4:2:0, it's meaningless to say 1080p isn't 1080p because of subsampling, because all the ones below it are also subsampled

for now i wouldnt buy one. Im still happy with my 1080p tv and i dont see why i need a better one. maybe in a couple years its something 2 consider but until it gets really mainstream 1080p is fine.

>>61769146
am I right in thinking this is why full IMAX is still shot on film; because there's no recording medium that can write data fast enough to keep up?

>>61769239
if you're making a 1080p video it's a good idea to record in 4K and then downsample for this reason. Looks noticeably better.

>>61773267
shooting on film is already allowing for lossy images, so there's no additional harm in instead using high quality lossy digital encoding
even lossless video compression can trim a lot off
digital theatre (DCI standard) for example, uses (lossy) jpeg2000-encoded frames

>>61773267
Nah, modern imax is shot digitally in 2K res. The reason it looks so crisp and clear is because they show a 4:4:4 video file on the projector else it would look like ass.

>>61772774
But that's not easy to find, anon...

>>61772774
Everyone would, but you act like you can just buy a 1080p OLED. 1080p OLEDs are often within a hundred or so dollars of 4K OLEDs and are hundreds more than it takes to get a decent 4K LCD.

You really aren't paying that much of a premium for resolution anymore. There's no 4K content, but it's still become the standard manufacturers are looking to put out with even their mid-tier TVs.

>>61770423

4k tvs aren't much more atm.,