Was HDTV the biggest fraud perpetrated on american consumers after circumcision?
>>66640387
I don't know because I don't know what data was used to make that graph. Wouldn't surprise me though
>>66640387
No because hdtv actually looks better, nigga you even seen 1080p@60fps its fucking sweet.
4k@60fps is fucking boss too.
Sure its pointless going to 4k if you are sat 15ft from a 40 inch television, but if you game at higher resolution etc its totally fucking better.
I have a 1080p dlp projector in my home theatre i bought for like 650 dollars, not worth the money buying anything else till cheaper 4k projectors hit this year..
>>66640387
good post -- something i've been telling pcucks who cicle jerk over "1080p" and now "4K" for time immemorial -- the shit's a scam and you need a 100" TV to start seeing noticeable improvement
it's all just a scam to upgrade equipment, hardware and re-sell the same shit in "HD"
>>66641144
>fucking sweet
>fucking boss
with the look of english females, it's little wonder you're blind (...and retarded)
>>66641144
It's the higher fps and the enhanced color palettes not the resolution.
wait, what the fuck, who made that graph?
you notice 4k on a 27 incher by a lot more because you need to do the good ol' Maori-hello with your screensaver to notice any pixels while on a 40+ incher pixels are still noticeable (although looking far smoother than 1080p).
>>66641360
>screensaver
Thread is about TVs.
>>66641326
I used to use a pretty high end flatscreen 1600x1200 crt back in the day and when i jumped to a 1920x1200 lcd it was worth it.
The colour/contrast/and gamma were all way inferior on the lcd too..
Would it be worth me getting say a 50 inch 1080p oled/plasma because its better than the projector or monitors im using, no because the money is silly..
Would i buy a 4k LED/laser backlight projector later this year early next year for 1000-2000 dollars totally. Probably be the last big screen i buy as buy the time the led/laser fucks up on that shit vr headmounts will have killed conventional screens.
The biggest fraud on consumers is thinking pixel density on phones matters above about 300dpi.
A phone screen at 5 inch above 2650x1600 seems like a pointless thing.
I went from a 1280x1024 projector that cost like 2 grand 10 years back to a 1920x1080 projector that cost 1/5th the price and it was like going from vhs.
Early adopted 4k in the home was a conjob because the source is shit right now.
Tl;dr if you have a home theatre or a couch more than 6ft away from the screen >greater than 50inch 1080p is the way to go eventually . If not, its pointless going a over 1080p for now.
Where is that graph from? Because it's pretty fucking stupid.
>>66641360
I know what op is saying, your eyes wont tell 480p/1080p/4k at like 20ft on a 37 inch screen.
I can tell 720p / 1080p apart on youtube all the fucking time at 15ft away on a 100 inch screen sub 720p looks fucking horrific.
that study is bullshit, if you go to best buy or wherever there are multiple screens, you can immedately tell the difference between hd and 4k, between 420, 720 and 1080
>>66641213
what kind of shit argument is that
pc would be sitting at a monitor 2 feet from your face
that's when every upgrade to resolution makes the most noticeable improvements
this graph only benifits those trying to figure out best tv size for their living room and home theatres
>>66641213
I bet you're a Mac fag
>>66641282
I'm really jealous of Australians and their gene pool, descendants of British criminals and retards, and abos.
>>66641213
I dont disagree with you and the op to a point, these cucks buying 40inch 4k tvs and then sitting 10ft away just got fleeced out of a few thousand.
for monitors and ultra large home theatre setups though 1080p > 4k is a big improvement over the old days..
Shit i used to game at 640x480 back in the quake/half life days.
When unreal tourny and quake 3 came out i had a beast of a pc and ran them at 1024x768
>>66642464
i think ultra high res mac displays were the first real consumer lcd back 15 years ago. I think they released a 24 or 23 inch 1920x1200 display for around 1500-2000 and it was a big deal in medical/design circles.
I recall when dell released a 24inch 1920x1200 display about a year later for around 1/3rd of the price and everybody on the internet went nuts.
>>66641282
>flag
Don't you have an emu to serve
>>66642353
Do you not realize that:
A. You generally are standing 2 feet away from the 4K screen when you see it in a box store.
B. They use special 4K material on the 4K screens and lower resolution material on those that aren't for the very purpose of increasing the difference to sell more 4K.
>>66640387
I bought a 43 inch Samsung 720p Plasma last year for 400 bucks and it is awesome. I think the picture looks better than low end 1080p LED TVs, especially sports. I don't get how people can justify dropping thousands of dollars on a TV that is only marginally better in terms of resolution. I don't need all the the smart features, 3D or curved shit.
As somebody who was in the industry at the time it was explained to me like this: hdtv is the gift given to consumers to make them ok with being forced to switch to digital television.
The government wanted for a long time to switch the broadcasting signals over to digital, but the consumers would never do it cause all of their tvs would be rendered useless overnight.
What they did was allow manufacturers to produce hdtv.
It was slow but it took off.
Then those hdtvs were made with ATSC tuners. You were told this was to pick up hd antenna signals.
In reality this was the plot all along, before hdtv was even a thing.
After a couple of years of sales the government decided to throw the switch on NTSC broadcast and change it to ATSC. This was in June 2009.
Anyone who couldn't get signals was given a voucher which they could use to get a converter box.
It was wild times and people were greatly misinformed. Lots of sales though that helped my company through the recession.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition_in_the_United_States
In all I believe it was done for national defense. More radio channels can be shoved into the digital spectrum than analog.
What pissed everyone off was it was explained as a win win for the consumer when in reality it made no difference. Most channels just broadcast the digital but didn't start hd broadcast till some years later due to the cost involved.
>>66640387
No, bottled water was. It's the exact same shit, except they charge a lot for it.
inb4 /p/ autists
>>66643581
Keep in mind that hd had been around for a long time before it was a thing in the consumer market.
Movies going back as far as the 80s were shot in hd resolution and above due to advances in film chemistry. There was just no way to reproduce it on the old picture tubes with manufacturing techniques of the day.
During the 90s manufacturing caught up and allowed for microscopic manufacturing techniques along with the advances in computer technology.
The first HDTVs were the old CRT tvs. They had a beautiful color spectrum and held their own well into the 2000s.
Flat panels became popular for obvious reasons and people were willing to sacrifice picture quality for convenience and cool factor.
My bet is if they still made CRTs they'd compete with modern HDTVs.
>>66640387
The picture quality itself looks great but the way they try to sell new features that are gradually rolled out each year make it obvious how much is BS.
Eg 1080p, then 100hz, 200hz, 3D, 4K, and so on.
>>66644049
>if they still made CRTS
CRTs ARE still made m8, they're just usually very bulky and very expensive, given that they're an especially luxurious item comparatively.
>>66644049
CRT TVs are heavy and bulky as fuck and aren't as aesthetically pleasing as Flat Panel TVs. You could argue that TVs today are basically furniture. They did have great picture quality though.
>>66644049
>Movies going back as far as the 80s were shot in hd resolution and above due to advances in film chemistry.
Worse, digital hd is mid 80s stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_HDVS#Uses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_and_Julia
>>66640904
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/19/tv_sizes_deconstructed/?page=2
Not the exact same but pretty similar results with math and reasoning given. The general idea being human visual acuity is only about one dot per minute arc. Seems to jive with my personal experiences.
>>66641326
This, my parents have a 720 TV with really dark blacks and great colors and it looks better than a lot of 1080 screens I've seen.
>>66640387
No, 1080p is a very decent res even in 2016, 20 years after it's mainstream introduction
4k is definitely diminishing returns though
>>66640387
No, I have a 55" TV and I sit about 6-7' from it. You have visual impairment if you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 480p at a reasonable viewing distance.
>>66640387
4k has more detail per pixel, so, no, it wasn't.
>>66640387
Dude what ?
That picture doesn't even make sense.
Why would you watch TV so far away ?
Of course there won't be any difference from that far away, it's pure physics.
HD is meant to be enjoyed with a big TV from normal viewing distance.
That's like saying you can't distinguish a Fiat Punto and a Ferrari from miles away and there is no point in buying a Ferrari.
>>66640387
HD cable sure is. HDTVs have been commonplace for years and yet they still tread HD like a "premium" even though everything is in HD anyway. I suppose that is also why no one bothers subscribing to actual cable TV.
>>66644865
This.
>t. I have a 4K monitor and 4K TV
>>66643581
>In all I believe it was done for national defense. More radio channels can be shoved into the digital spectrum than analog.
More like phone companies. More frequencies for wireless networks.
Side benefit from digital modulation is lower transmitter power, saving a ton of money from network operators.
Im running a 40 4k monitor (crossover). Its a huge improvement over my 24in monitor.
I wont upgrade my 6 year old living room TV for another two to three years... waiting for OLED tv to improve a little more, that picture is fantastic. also not a poor fag, can i afford to buy almost anything i want without going into debt.
>>66644094
You don't understand how a lot of this works do you?
Resolution and refresh rate have both been components of TVs forever. However, modern technology has forced a sacrifice of one or the other. Refresh rate never came into play with past and old technology like CRTs due to their design, as well as the general lower resolutions that were seen in the mediums.
Most computer monitors now run 1920x1080 at 60 Hz. This is 1080p at 60 frames per second. You will often see 120Hz or 144Hz monitors in this resolution which creates a smoother experience (more individual frames being drawn) and is generally considered good for gaming.
A 1440p or 4K monitor (which is 2160p) has higher pixel density which provides a better quality image overall, but not necessarily a smoother experience. A 4K monitor at 144Hz would require a set-up that would be nearly impossible to manage with today's graphical processing, since each and every frame (144 of them per second) would have to be processed (at 4 times the density of 1080p).
TVs are similar in that it requires more under the hood power to run both high resolution and high refresh displays, so much so that many modern TVs now have quad-core processors.
When 8K hits, it will be the same. It'll start at 60Hz, then as processing power becomes more robust, this will extend into 120Hz/144Hz.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of bullshit stuff with TV "upgrades" each year but refresh/resolution aren't it.
4k is a meme, only /v/irgins care when they're bragging about PCs they don't have.
1080p is far better than 480/576p.
This isn't politics.
>>66644049
>Movies going back as far as the 80s were shot in hd resolution and above due to advances in film chemistry.
Films have nearly infinite resolution. The main reason why old movies are blurry isn't films, but cameras.
>>66645317
>I'm not saying there isn't a lot of bullshit stuff with TV "upgrades" each year but refresh/resolution aren't it.
The problem is as there isn't major improvement at any individual improvement... is at selecting where to upgrade.
Might as well do what this guy >>66645258 does.
>>66640387
1080p was always good enough. 4k is not something to pay extra for.
Have any of you actually seen a 4k tv/monitor in real life? They're amazing. The only reason they're a meme for gayming is the GPU power needed to run games at 4k is prohibitevly expensive
>>66644049
>>66646067
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I read his post. Film is an analog source. Resolution, as such, doesn't really exist. Same for analog tape audio recordings. Digital resolution are just samples of the analog world. The greater the resolution, the more samples taken, the more accurately replicates the analog master source.
>>66645452
4K is inevitable. Most TV manufacturers have relegated 1080p TVs to their mid to low end model sets now, meaning that their quality will be decreased until they are eventually replaced.
Finding 1080p sets with great contrast, color range, and better Smart functions was difficult with 2014 models and harder still in 2015. One of the easiest ways to upsell 4K is to simply not produce quality 1080p. In a few years the only 1080p TVs will be sold from "bargain" makers like Vizio and Hisense.
>>66646067
>The problem is as there isn't major improvement at any individual improvement... is at selecting where to upgrade.
This isn't that hard, but it requires a little research. What are you watching? What do you care about most?
Movies? Videos? Generally here quality is better. In that case higher resolution, IPS panels, etc. will provide the best image. Things like OLED will eventually be more mainstream with better contrast and color range.
Sports? Games? Being able to track a hockey puck might be nice, and in first person shooters fps does matter. In that case you'll want higher refresh rates like 120Hz or 144Hz. It is more cost effective with cheaper TN panels, but there are some IPS now that can do it.
Things like 3D are declining and somewhat gimmicky, but if they are important to you, they require high resolution panels. Since each eye has to be drawn images, it halves the refresh rate (120Hz will only produce 60Hz per eye).
>>66646698
>Same for analog tape audio recordings
If speaking of magnetic tape then there is a resolution, and it sucks.
>>66640387
I don't know man. I don't watch TV, but I bought a 240hz 4k TV for my mom. That shit looks incredible.
>>66647097
I'm not talking about cassette tape. I'm talking about master tape. Quarter inch, two track ATR Master Tape running at 15 inches per second involves approximately 80,000,000 oriented and randomly stacked particles per track second. That yields a more detailed representation of the live audio source than digital sampling.
>>66647699
>Not having your own personal band on standby for times when music is required in high fidelity.
ISHYGDDT
most people are just stupid and put 30" TVs twenty feet away from where they sit
tl;dr: it's not a scam, normies are just dumb
>>66647255
>watches 720p/1080i television on it
