In my opinion the 4K sets I have seen simply look better at any distance, regardless of the content being displayed.
Then your eyes are fooling you. At normal distances there is no difference in perceived resolution.
Where you able to compare a 1080p TV vs a 4k TV that had the EXACT same internals except for resolution?
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 4 feet away from a 50 inch TV.
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 6 feet away from a 70 inch TV.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
Agree, not sure how prevalent 4K TVs are at this point.
4K is coming quickly. The 4K rollout is not going to be painfully slow and take multiple decades like the HD rollout did. This week, I got notified by my cable company that their 4K service will be rolled out by the end of 2015. In the weekly flyers from all of the department stores/electronics stores in my area, more than 50% of the TV's advertised are 4K models and the price of the 4K models is dropping rapidly too.
But even if the 4K rollout weren't happening so quickly, it doesn't make sense to me that Apple included 4K in the iPhone and the iMac but not in the Apple TV. If it's really all about hitting a specific price point, I don't see why they wouldn't release an Apple TV "pro" which costs $50 more and can play the 4K content.
It also doesn't make sense that Apple didn't really comment on the lack of 4k. I think they always intended for it to be capable of 4K playback and encountered some last minute software issues but didn't want to delay the release. It's my prediction that there will be a firmware update very soon - possibly before the end of the year, but at most 3 months away - that will enable playback of 4K content on the new Apple TV. The dual-core, 64-bit A8 chip should be more than capable of decoding 4K content - especially if they run it at the higher clock speeds that are possible when not worrying about battery drain.
It's really the only thing that makes sense. I'll even self-ban myself for a month if there's no way to play 4K content on an Apple TV by the end of March 2016.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
You could just ask him why Apple has Retina Displays on Macs; most of them are higher resolution than 1080p; if 1080p is good enough for everybody why bother? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
While the A8 can power 4K video I have doubts that it can power 4K games.
I think when the AppleTV 5 comes out in 2-3 years from now and has an A10 or A11? we will see its 4K capabilities in games and video. When the AppleTV 2 came out there were the same complaints on why couldn't it be 1080 instead of the 720 that it is. In 3 years everyone will have faster internet, hopefully higher data caps and there will be more 4K video from nextflix and probably iTunes as well. More people will have 4K sets. Honestly Bluray looks better on my 4K TV than streaming 4K from Amazon Prime.
My big question is do I go with the 32GB or the 64GB
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
It's not your eyes. It's your brain. This phenomena happens to audiophile also. That's why the best way to test audio quality is to use blind test. I used to fool my supposedly audiophile friend by having him see me put SACD in the tray but play CD instead and as expected, he proclaimed the sound was much better than the CD he had (which was the same one I used).
You could just ask him why Apple has Retina Displays on Macs; most of them are higher resolution than 1080p; if 1080p is good enough for everybody why bother? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
That would have been a lot less tiresome (both to read and to write) than the screed I wrote.
The difference is some people are constantly bickering and bitching about Apple.
They are the best. Just because they don't meet your expectations does not mean they aren't.
Show me a competitor that offers a 5k screen that's better than the iMac? Show me a windows machine that looks as nice as the Mac, performs as well and has that beautiful screen for less? And still you will be stuck with a virus infested OS.
16GB phones are fine for tens of millions.
AppleTV is going to act as a DVR.
iPad Pro is a pro device (duh) of course it will need more storage.
No way on earth does this acquisition happen if they were still a public company. The shareholders would make too much of a protest worrying about the next quarters numbers instead of the long-term vision.
Wish Apple made solid plans to go public too. The emphasis on quarterly numbers and Wall Streets bullshit is hurting the companies long-term vision.
For example Apple just spent over $100 billion on buying back stock. That would have never happened if they were private. They could use that $100 billion to make strategic acquisitions or pay a nice special dividend. Apple should stop the buyback immediately and disclose that they are in early talks about going private.
Another example of short-term thinking to make quarterly numbers to please Wall Street is:
1. Starting iPhone at 16GB instead of 32GB. Yes starting at 32GB will hurt profits in the SHORT-TERM but in the long term it will solidify iPhone user base.
2. Bringing out a half-ready Apple Watch. Because of Wall Street pressure Apple brought out the Watch way to early. The software was not ready for big time. The hardware is not fast enough and the services are not build out enough. If Apple was private they could have waiting till it was truly ready.
3. AppleTV. Should have had 4k and uncompressed audio. Should have hammered a TV package even if in the short-term they would make zero profit on it. Should have made a more gamer ready remote and Ax9 chip. Should have integrated Homekit. All these things would hurt short term profits but it would establish AppleTV as the standard in the all in one home box. If they did this they could easily sell 50-75 million AppleTV's with TV packages. AT that point Apple could negotiate with the content providers a better deal once they have a dominate position.
The $100 billion buyback was to appease Wall Street. How has Wall Street rewarded Apple? By making the stock worth LESS than when the buyback began. Fuc Wall Street.
FACT: There is no benefit to 4k at normal viewing distances unless the screen is 70 inches or larger.
FACT: There is very little real 4k media available.
FACT: Netflix 4k streaming is not any better than a standard Bluray disc because of bitrate limitations
FACT: With current technology the only way to get real 4k video is to buy 4k discs (not available till 2016) or download the entire 100GB file.
FACT: HDTV took 7-10 years to go mainstream. And the jump from standard definition to high definition was a massive jump that could be easily seen even on regular sized TV's. The jump from HD to 4k is much harder to see on regular sized TV's.
I wish they just included 4k from the start just like the iPhone 6s. That would be a major selling point to be able to watch your 6s 4k videos on the new AppleTV.
I was in Best Buy yesterday, and I couldn't believe the change from a year ago. Last year, there was one or two 4K TV's displayed in the high-end "Magnolia" section, and they were about $5,000. Yesterday, all the 1080p TV's were relegated to an off-the-beaten path side aisle, and most of what I saw in the main section was 4K, and they were about $1,000. My point is, these things will be mainstream very, very soon.
This is exactly the experience I had when I bought my set at Best Buy a few months ago. And as for the. On parison with 3D: I never knew anyone who bought a 3D set but I know a couple who have gotten a 4K set.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
+1
Not sure why sog35 is so invested in convincing us 4K is crap.
I use my eyes to make a living as a photo retoucher and graphic designer. I'm pretty good at spotting detail. And I can tell streaming 4K is better than streaming 1080p. Sure, I prefer the BluRay bit rates at 1080p, but I'm not a huge fan of discs anymore. I have a few for my favorites, but I stream everything else. Even the BluRay will look better on the 4K set because the sets use sophisticated up sampling which improves the rendering on the higher density display.
Anyway, sure, the bigger the better for 4K. And what's wrong with 70" sets? I'll make the room! Granted, it's not time to replace my main 1080p set, my 4K is for my bedroom, and isn't 70" (though it's closer than a typical living room set to my eyeballs). People would have found our current 42-55" average size televisions ridiculously large 15 years ago. You don't think we are capable of adapting to larger TVs again?
It's not your eyes. It's your brain. This phenomena happens to audiophile also. That's why the best way to test audio quality is to use blind test. I used to fool my supposedly audiophile friend by having him see me put SACD in the tray but play CD instead and as expected, he proclaimed the sound was much better than the CD he had (which was the same one I used).
But how do I do a blind test when I need to use my eyeballs!
All kidding aside, walk into any place that sells these sets side by side. It's pretty clear which is superior. Even from a few feet away in sub-optimal conditions.
Regarding your audio test, it's often not until the speakers/headphones are good enough that one can tell the difference between crappy audio and superior high quality audio. It takes decent quality stuff to exploit the difference in audio. Much like it takes a higher resolution screen to see a better picture from the same content.
I never got into SACD myself, CD's were pretty much good enough for me with decent gear. I have a feeling that once we hit 8K, that will be my limit for my eyeballs. Or maybe 4K will be sufficient.
But some of you here are CONSTANTLY BITCHING about Apple.
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
People would have found our current 42-55" average size televisions ridiculously large 15 years ago. You don't think we are capable of adapting to larger TVs again?
Don't forget there is a sizeable part of the world who live in places where putting large televisions in their living rooms is like sitting front row at the cinema (mine is currently ~6' away from the sofa due to walls on either side of the room). For many of us, we'd have to break out a wall so we could scoot back in order to enjoy anything so large. Of course, the irony is that we're the ones most likely to have the adequate bandwidth (city centre dwellers) for certain streaming services that require fast(er) connections.
Also since Apple's business model is (for the most part) making money off hardware sales why shouldn't I be able to trust Apple with my data? I know they're not in the business of selling it so they would be using it for one reason and one reason only: to provide a better user experience. And they could easily allow you to switch this stuff off in privacy settings if you're uncomfortable giving Apple any of your data.
Exactly! It's not about whether or not they COLLECT user data - it's more about how they use it...and about giving users the ability to opt-out. Google collects data for nefarious purposes. They sell it, they use it to target you and who knows what else - and this is all spelled out in their privacy agreements. To differentiate themselves from Google, Apple has gone to great lengths to NOT collect user data...but they could just as easily differentiate themselves by collecting the data (with permission) and being very clear and controlled about HOW THEY USE IT... If the Apple privacy agreement said that the data would ONLY ever be used to improve the services they provide to you, that it was secure while stored in Apple Systems and that it was strictly opt-in....they would be welcome to my data. The concerns with this approach though are that no matter how noble Apples intentions are - if the data is stored in their systems - governments can force them to release it - and that's not a concern if the data doesn't exist in the first place...
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
Don't forget the rant about $1 per month for increased iCloud data.
But how do I do a blind test when I need to use my eyeballs!
All kidding aside, walk into any place that sells these sets side by side. It's pretty clear which is superior. Even from a few feet away in sub-optimal conditions.
Regarding your audio test, it's often not until the speakers/headphones are good enough that one can tell the difference between crappy audio and superior high quality audio. It takes decent quality stuff to exploit the difference in audio. Much like it takes a higher resolution screen to see a better picture from the same content.
I never got into SACD myself, CD's were pretty much good enough for me with decent gear. I have a feeling that once we hit 8K, that will be my limit for my eyeballs. Or maybe 4K will be sufficient.
We shall see.
Get it? We shall see.
^^^ See what I did there?
OK I will stop now.
The room I tested, the stereo speakers alone are $100,000 a pair. That's why the test was so funny (and eye-opening)
There're just too much variables in TV shops to be certain about quality of the screen. I never look at TV in the shop to determine about its quality. Mostly I'll look at spec sheet first. I don't trust the shop to calibrate them right.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had said the evidence you should trust the least in court is eyewitness account. It's not scientific. He's a very smart guy.
I've seen the same thing with 3d TV's a few years ago. Yet 3d did not go mainstream. It does not matter how hard the stores push 4k, if the consumer sees no benefit they won't buy it.
And its not even about the television sets themselves. We had HDTV's for YEARS before HD content went mainstream. They were selling 720p and 1080p sets for YEARS before the mainstream bought Bluray discs or had HDTV. In fact even TODAY Bluray disc is not as main stream as DVD was. My point is 4k content is not ready, especially for streaming. We won't have a 4k disc player till next year and it will cost $500. That is NOT mainstream. We won't have 4k discs at mainstream prices until at least 2017. 4k streaming has even larger hurtles to jump.
Comparing 3D to 4K is not a valid comparison. 3D is a gimmick whereas 4K is an actual improvement to the resolution.
Don't forget there is a sizeable part of the world who live in places where putting large televisions in their living rooms is like sitting front row at the cinema (mine is currently ~6' away from the sofa due to walls on either side of the room). For many of us, we'd have to break out a wall so we could scoot back in order to enjoy anything so large. Of course, the irony is that we're the ones most likely to have the adequate bandwidth (city centre dwellers) for certain streaming services that require fast(er) connections.
If you go by the charts and FACTs pointed out above, a smaller set will do just fine for those with smaller spaces. I think the 70" suggestion was based on a typical larger suburban American home.
I fall into the suburban American home category. So I could certainly benefit from (and can find the room for) a larder set.
Of course the 4k will look better than the 1080p sets at a store:
1. The store sets it up that way so you buy the much more expensive 4k sets.
2. The 4k sets have a wider color gamut
3. The 4k sets have better contrast and black levels
4. The 4k sets have better brightness and white levels
5. The 4k sets are running a superior source material
6. The 4k sets have superior glass and panel quality
The only way you can truly tell if 4k resolution makes a difference if you have 2 TV's that have identical components except one has a 1080p panel and one has a 4k panel. And they need to be using the same source material and calibrated exactly the same.
What you see in stores is the EXACT opposite of that.
IMO, the difference you are seeing at the store at normal viewing distances is the superior components in the 4k set that have NOTHING to do with resolution.
of course. I doubt anyone is arguing that.
My point is that on the same set a 4K stream is better than a 1080p stream.
You say 4K streaming is a scam by Netflix.
I see a clear improvement in quality between the 4K & 1080p streams on the same set.
Which leads me to believe I'm not being scammed for my 4K streaming service.
Comments
In my opinion the 4K sets I have seen simply look better at any distance, regardless of the content being displayed.
Then your eyes are fooling you. At normal distances there is no difference in perceived resolution.
Where you able to compare a 1080p TV vs a 4k TV that had the EXACT same internals except for resolution?
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 4 feet away from a 50 inch TV.
To see the difference in 4k TV you would have to be 6 feet away from a 70 inch TV.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
But even if the 4K rollout weren't happening so quickly, it doesn't make sense to me that Apple included 4K in the iPhone and the iMac but not in the Apple TV. If it's really all about hitting a specific price point, I don't see why they wouldn't release an Apple TV "pro" which costs $50 more and can play the 4K content.
It also doesn't make sense that Apple didn't really comment on the lack of 4k. I think they always intended for it to be capable of 4K playback and encountered some last minute software issues but didn't want to delay the release. It's my prediction that there will be a firmware update very soon - possibly before the end of the year, but at most 3 months away - that will enable playback of 4K content on the new Apple TV. The dual-core, 64-bit A8 chip should be more than capable of decoding 4K content - especially if they run it at the higher clock speeds that are possible when not worrying about battery drain.
It's really the only thing that makes sense. I'll even self-ban myself for a month if there's no way to play 4K content on an Apple TV by the end of March 2016.
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
You could just ask him why Apple has Retina Displays on Macs; most of them are higher resolution than 1080p; if 1080p is good enough for everybody why bother?
While the A8 can power 4K video I have doubts that it can power 4K games.
I think when the AppleTV 5 comes out in 2-3 years from now and has an A10 or A11? we will see its 4K capabilities in games and video. When the AppleTV 2 came out there were the same complaints on why couldn't it be 1080 instead of the 720 that it is. In 3 years everyone will have faster internet, hopefully higher data caps and there will be more 4K video from nextflix and probably iTunes as well. More people will have 4K sets. Honestly Bluray looks better on my 4K TV than streaming 4K from Amazon Prime.
My big question is do I go with the 32GB or the 64GB
You can post all of the charts, graphs, and statements of FACT That you want to.
You can certainly tell me that my eyes are fooling me.
You can also try your hardest to convince me that a 4K screen does not look better than a 1080 screen.
All I can say is that in my opinion a 4K set simply looks better to me at any distance. My opinion is based on what I have actually seen with my own two eyeballs. That just is my opinion. My opinion does not show up on any chart or graph. Nor does my opinion fit your narrative of FACT's.
If my eyes are fooling me, so be it. But I have pretty good vision that could spot a flea on a dogs ass from a yard away.
I understand if you don't want to believe it, or can't see it for yourself. That is perfectly fair. After all these are my eyeballs (not anyone else's) telling my brain (not someone else's brain) which screen is better.
It's not your eyes. It's your brain. This phenomena happens to audiophile also. That's why the best way to test audio quality is to use blind test. I used to fool my supposedly audiophile friend by having him see me put SACD in the tray but play CD instead and as expected, he proclaimed the sound was much better than the CD he had (which was the same one I used).
You could just ask him why Apple has Retina Displays on Macs; most of them are higher resolution than 1080p; if 1080p is good enough for everybody why bother?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
That would have been a lot less tiresome (both to read and to write) than the screed I wrote.
Apple is all into 4k, 5k and Retina except when it comes to Apple TV.
Well. and the Macbook Air too.
Ahem....
Ahem...
This is exactly the experience I had when I bought my set at Best Buy a few months ago. And as for the. On parison with 3D: I never knew anyone who bought a 3D set but I know a couple who have gotten a 4K set.
+1
Not sure why sog35 is so invested in convincing us 4K is crap.
I use my eyes to make a living as a photo retoucher and graphic designer. I'm pretty good at spotting detail. And I can tell streaming 4K is better than streaming 1080p. Sure, I prefer the BluRay bit rates at 1080p, but I'm not a huge fan of discs anymore. I have a few for my favorites, but I stream everything else. Even the BluRay will look better on the 4K set because the sets use sophisticated up sampling which improves the rendering on the higher density display.
Anyway, sure, the bigger the better for 4K. And what's wrong with 70" sets? I'll make the room! Granted, it's not time to replace my main 1080p set, my 4K is for my bedroom, and isn't 70" (though it's closer than a typical living room set to my eyeballs). People would have found our current 42-55" average size televisions ridiculously large 15 years ago. You don't think we are capable of adapting to larger TVs again?
It's not your eyes. It's your brain. This phenomena happens to audiophile also. That's why the best way to test audio quality is to use blind test. I used to fool my supposedly audiophile friend by having him see me put SACD in the tray but play CD instead and as expected, he proclaimed the sound was much better than the CD he had (which was the same one I used).
But how do I do a blind test when I need to use my eyeballs!
All kidding aside, walk into any place that sells these sets side by side. It's pretty clear which is superior. Even from a few feet away in sub-optimal conditions.
Regarding your audio test, it's often not until the speakers/headphones are good enough that one can tell the difference between crappy audio and superior high quality audio. It takes decent quality stuff to exploit the difference in audio. Much like it takes a higher resolution screen to see a better picture from the same content.
I never got into SACD myself, CD's were pretty much good enough for me with decent gear. I have a feeling that once we hit 8K, that will be my limit for my eyeballs. Or maybe 4K will be sufficient.
We shall see.
Get it? We shall see.
^^^ See what I did there?
OK I will stop now.
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
People would have found our current 42-55" average size televisions ridiculously large 15 years ago. You don't think we are capable of adapting to larger TVs again?
Don't forget there is a sizeable part of the world who live in places where putting large televisions in their living rooms is like sitting front row at the cinema (mine is currently ~6' away from the sofa due to walls on either side of the room). For many of us, we'd have to break out a wall so we could scoot back in order to enjoy anything so large. Of course, the irony is that we're the ones most likely to have the adequate bandwidth (city centre dwellers) for certain streaming services that require fast(er) connections.
I think I'm pretty consistent in my views and in what I rant about. I just posted a comment from you saying that Apple should have included 4K with the new AppleTV. In this thread you're arguing the opposite. Same with 16GB phones. Honestly I prefer your rant because I think that's your honest feelings.
Don't forget the rant about $1 per month for increased iCloud data.
But how do I do a blind test when I need to use my eyeballs!
All kidding aside, walk into any place that sells these sets side by side. It's pretty clear which is superior. Even from a few feet away in sub-optimal conditions.
Regarding your audio test, it's often not until the speakers/headphones are good enough that one can tell the difference between crappy audio and superior high quality audio. It takes decent quality stuff to exploit the difference in audio. Much like it takes a higher resolution screen to see a better picture from the same content.
I never got into SACD myself, CD's were pretty much good enough for me with decent gear. I have a feeling that once we hit 8K, that will be my limit for my eyeballs. Or maybe 4K will be sufficient.
We shall see.
Get it? We shall see.
^^^ See what I did there?
OK I will stop now.
The room I tested, the stereo speakers alone are $100,000 a pair.
There're just too much variables in TV shops to be certain about quality of the screen. I never look at TV in the shop to determine about its quality. Mostly I'll look at spec sheet first. I don't trust the shop to calibrate them right.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had said the evidence you should trust the least in court is eyewitness account. It's not scientific. He's a very smart guy.
Comparing 3D to 4K is not a valid comparison. 3D is a gimmick whereas 4K is an actual improvement to the resolution.
If you go by the charts and FACTs pointed out above, a smaller set will do just fine for those with smaller spaces. I think the 70" suggestion was based on a typical larger suburban American home.
I fall into the suburban American home category. So I could certainly benefit from (and can find the room for) a larder set.
of course. I doubt anyone is arguing that.
My point is that on the same set a 4K stream is better than a 1080p stream.
You say 4K streaming is a scam by Netflix.
I see a clear improvement in quality between the 4K & 1080p streams on the same set.
Which leads me to believe I'm not being scammed for my 4K streaming service.