buying my first TV. So many options

[petteyg359]

Also a 4K TV running at 1080p will still look 10 million times better then a 1080p tv at 1080p.. The reason why is the pixels. One important thing people constantly forget on TVS and Monitors for computers is the PPI.. A higher PPI will always have a superior picture. ALWAYS..

That's logical nonsense. If you upscale by making every pixel 2x2, your effective PPI for the same picture is no better. Unless the upscaling is doing anti-aliasing somehow (which would be pretty darn magical given the GPU horsepower required to do anti-aliasing at 4k on a PC), a 1080p stream is going to be 100% identical when upscaled to a 4k display compared to a native 1080p display. If the picture looks better on the 4k screen, then either the 4k screen is just a better display in general (e.g. OLED response times vs LCD response times, IPS vs TN color accuracy), or you're suffering a placebo effect.

Now back to tv monitor's. Most T.V's the average ones 55-65 inchs are like 40PPI.. Yes 40 or actually 36 pixels per inch.. thats what a 1080p 55 inch will be at. If you get a 2k 55 inch youll have 55 pixels per inch, if you get a 4k 55 inch tv youll be at 80 Pixels per inch.. 80 is close to what our computer monitors are at "still lower of course" but 80 is wayyy better then 36 or 55..

Most people sit rather farther than 16" from a TV, so the PPI doesn't need to be nearly as high to present the same quality. That's what Apple is advertising with their "Retina" thing. At a certain distance, you can't see pixels because Human Eyeball Mk I has limits.

I have two 55 inch LCD tv's one is a cheaper tv only 1080p the other is a 2k T.V, i can clearly night and day see the superior 2k TV picture quality.. the cheaper one is grainy as hell even 4 feet away.

Given that 4k generally refers to 3840x2160, I would think 2k is 1920x1080p (where the digit before k is approximate thousand-pixels of width), and then you're claiming one 1080p display looks better than another, in which case that has absolutely nothing at all to do with PPI.

If you mean 2560x1440, that's not any kind of TV I've ever seen. There are NO 2560x1440 broadcasts; any channels or movies viewed on such a display would be upscaled by a non-integral ratio (1.333_), and how anybody could claim that looks better makes no sense.

 

[Cnaydmancangt]

That's logical nonsense. If you upscale by making every pixel 4x4, your effective PPI for the same picture is no better. Unless the upscaling is doing anti-aliasing somehow (which would be pretty darn magical given the GPU horsepower required to do anti-aliasing at 4k on a PC), a 1080p stream is going to be 100% identical when upscaled to a 4k display compared to a native 1080p display. If the picture looks better on the 4k screen, then either the 4k screen is just a better display in general (e.g. OLED response times vs LCD response times, IPS vs TN color accuracy), or you're suffering a placebo effect.



Most people sit rather farther than 16" from a TV, so the PPI doesn't need to be nearly as high to present the same quality.

Logic ? where is your Logic when a TV or monitor PHYSICALLY has more pixels vs a TV or monitor that doesnt.. A T.V or Monitor with a higher resolution on the same size or same resolution then a smaller monitor will have more physical pixels then the later.. More pixels means better picture..

I dare you to take a standard 1080p 32 inch T.V and put it side by side to a 32 inch computer monitor that can do 4K, and put them both at at a 1080p resolution.. the 1080p 32 inch tv will look like the picture was put together using a stack of legos compard to the other monitor. EVEN if they are put at the same resolution... It doesnt matter Pixels are physical, the more the better. And 4k TV'S come with more pixels then cheaper 1080 TVs do. Resolution is one thing, but pixel stacking is another, and a higher resolution on the same size monitor always means more pixels.

Its like when building cars, there is no replacement for displacement, and with more displacement you can get more power, and before you go telling me your 4 cylinder ricer with a turbo puts out XX horse power, just remember what a V8 can put out with one on.. Just thought id mention that before you try to logic bash me with this

Done with this thread.. LOL your post is absurd

EDIT: also 16 feet away or 10 or 5 feet, i can still see the PPI difference from 40 to 80... Your logic there reminds me of the days when people like you would say oh.. well youre eyes cant see more then 30fps in a video game so it doesnt matter if the game runs at 60 or not.. Now we have monitor with over 250hz refresh rate and people are saying OH i would never go back to 60.. the difference is amazing...



EDIT: Removed personal insult

 

[petteyg359]

Done with this thread.. LOL your post is absurd

If you replace 1 pixel with a square of pixels, where said square is the same size as the original 1, that magically makes a better picture? I do believe the absurdity is in the magical claim you have.

 

[Cnaydmancangt]

If you replace 1 pixel with a square of pixels, where said square is the same size as the original 1, that magically makes a better picture? I do believe the absurdity is in the magical claim you have.

If you place 40 more pixels on the same inch and 40 less pixels on the same inch.. yea the picture is alot better.

Better yet.. lemme load up a video game and take two picture one with a 32 inch LCD t.v i have, the other with my brother 32 inch monitor.. Both will be running at 1080p.. Gimme sec, once im done i expect an apology

- - - Updated - - -

https://imgur.com/a/yR9Tt

Awaits an apology.. Once youre done saying im right i expect no more nonsense from you..

But please go ahead and tell me both pictures look identical

 

[petteyg359]

You may note in my earlier post I mentioned differences between TN and IPS, or OLED and LCD. Those are two clearly different screen types; the difference in quality has very little to do with 4k vs 1080p. Also skeptical of your claim that they're running at the same resolution given the ridiculously obvious difference in scale. Or did you just put the camera really close to the screen for the first picture to try and make it more different than it really is?

 

[EarthDog]

I'm certain we will be able to discuss this without personal insults moving forward....

I dare you to take a standard 1080p 32 inch T.V and put it side by side to a 32 inch computer monitor that can do 4K, and put them both at at a 1080p resolution.. the 1080p 32 inch tv will look like the picture was put together using a stack of legos compard to the other monitor.

Running 1080p on a 4K monitor makes the image somewhat blurry as it is not in its native resolution. That and what was done at a 1:1 ratio, is now at 1:4 ratio so PPI really is the same it seems considering the scaling. instead of 1920x1080 1:1 you are 4K @ 1080p 1:4...though there are more pixels, you are now using 4 of them instead of 1 for the same thing.

 

[pinky33]

bought a TCL 55S403

$440 plus a $35 5 year total coverage plan.
$33 full motion tv mount
$40 logitech harmony remote
$20 in cables


Picking through parts bin for htpc build.

- - - Updated - - -

bought a TCL 55S403

$440 plus a $35 5 year total coverage plan.
$33 full motion tv mount
$40 logitech harmony remote
$20 in cables


Picking through parts bin for htpc build.

 

[pinky33]

bought a TCL 55S403

$440 plus a $35 5 year total coverage plan.
$33 full motion tv mount
$40 logitech harmony remote
$20 in cables


Picking through parts bin for htpc build.

 

[habbajabba]

My mom just got hooked up with an LG 4K smart tv with the remote control smart mouse (voice input). Plays mkv files, full browser, works with the spectrum ap quite well over the cable box one. Awesome picture but paid $1600.