I agree. Plus, the more processes the TV is running, the more lag there is when playing video games. I'm saying this because most, if not all 4K TV's run in 120 FPS or higher with many other processes in the background that make controller inputs lag.
That doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the controller input lag if the game console is receiving the controller's input? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV doesn't have anything to do with the game controller's input; all it does is display images that the console tells it to.
Last year's Vizio P series 4k had a very small amount of lag if you hooked your console up correctly, so congrats for them....
But with most modern TV's, artifical processing happens to clean up the picture or ntroduce certain effects, all of this usually create a good amount of input lag between your controller and the movements on screen. Most 4k's are even more intensive due to the processing increase.
However, most people don't even notice the lag, but if you gave them a comparison between a laggy 4k with all effects on (still running in 1080p mind you) and a set with very low input lag and set to game or PC mode, the difference becomes noticiable.
Most manufactures are working to solve the dispairty between 4k and 1080p sets, so, all in time.
At this point, I really don't care because the prices are too high and 4K content is too limited.
I am anxious for OLED televisions to before more affordable, though (my Vita has sold me on the advantages of OLED). I want something like but much cheaper:
Presently, computer monitors are the best reason to invest in 4K. If you have a 4K monitor and a video card that can support it, you can increase your screen resolution to 3840×2160. If you have a large monitor and set it to 3840×2160, you can fit a lot of stuff on your desktop.
LG is really the only manufacturer making a big push for OLED, 2015 will be the first time a company releases a whole line of OLED sets, so here is hoping that they become succesful and help to inevitably drop the price (2014 OLED models still cost between 2500 and 4000 dollars).
But yeah, when you see an OLED television in person, it's a thing of beauty, more so than a LCD LED running in 4k IMO.
I'm very much against HD television already, so 4k is even more worthless and glorified to me.
HD, and by extension, 4k, would be vaguely interesting if they were worth anything outside of gaming (and that's not much already).
Almost all movies only receive a cosmetic improvement, and it's still nothing to miss. There's no movie in existence where HD actually improves the movie itself, so it's mostly nothing more than a commercial keyword to make the uninformed consumers squeal in excitement over stuff they don't actually understand.
For my taste, HD can go rot somewhere. It's a standard everybody has, but nobody uses, full of exaggerated misinformation. If companies were at least honest about it, I wouldn't mind, but they present it like the second coming, and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
I kinda respectfully disagree, pretty much everything is avaliable in at least 720p HD. Going back to SD is very jarring for most people.
...and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
Lol, you bring back fond memories of my early teens, when I would watch TV, and my Dad would half-yell at me to switch whatever channel I was on to the satellite one with HD. I couldn't even tell the difference at the time, but God forbid if I wasn't using his brand new TV properly.
Dude, a 4K TV could cost $300 and I still wouldn't care in the slightest. TVs are gaming and streamed content boxes as far as I'm concerned, and there's next to nothing a 4K TV would do for either of those things...
Pretty much not at all. 1080p will be the goal for this gen and the standard for next, so there's no need to buy a 4K TV for like 10 more years. By then, they should be priced quite well too.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
I agree. Plus, the more processes the TV is running, the more lag there is when playing video games. I'm saying this because most, if not all 4K TV's run in 120 FPS or higher with many other processes in the background that make controller inputs lag.
That doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the controller input lag if the game console is receiving the controller's input? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV doesn't have anything to do with the game controller's input; all it does is display images that the console tells it to.
Last year's Vizio P series 4k had a very small amount of lag if you hooked your console up correctly, so congrats for them....
But with most modern TV's, artifical processing happens to clean up the picture or ntroduce certain effects, all of this usually create a good amount of input lag between your controller and the movements on screen. Most 4k's are even more intensive due to the processing increase.
However, most people don't even notice the lag, but if you gave them a comparison between a laggy 4k with all effects on (still running in 1080p mind you) and a set with very low input lag and set to game or PC mode, the difference becomes noticiable.
Most manufactures are working to solve the dispairty between 4k and 1080p sets, so, all in time.
Thank you for stating that.
@Nicolai I would've used the correct terms, but for simplicity's sake, I decided to make it easier for those who don't understand. When I'm talking about input lag, I'm talking about the input delay between the controller and the time the TV takes to display the action. An example of this is on the Wii U Gamepad and the TV. The Wii U Gamepad will always display the input before the TV, so when you switch to the TV, you can notice it's a tad slower (by a few milliseconds, depending on the TV).
Wi-Fi Game List:
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Splatoon
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS + All DLC
Mario Kart 8 + All DLC
Mario Golf: World Tour + All DLC
Mario Kart 7
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon
Wii U & 3DS Game Wish List:...
3DS Friend Code: 3737-9553-9610 | Nintendo Network ID: Toadette75
I agree. Plus, the more processes the TV is running, the more lag there is when playing video games. I'm saying this because most, if not all 4K TV's run in 120 FPS or higher with many other processes in the background that make controller inputs lag.
That doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the controller input lag if the game console is receiving the controller's input? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV doesn't have anything to do with the game controller's input; all it does is display images that the console tells it to.
Last year's Vizio P series 4k had a very small amount of lag if you hooked your console up correctly, so congrats for them....
But with most modern TV's, artifical processing happens to clean up the picture or ntroduce certain effects, all of this usually create a good amount of input lag between your controller and the movements on screen. Most 4k's are even more intensive due to the processing increase.
However, most people don't even notice the lag, but if you gave them a comparison between a laggy 4k with all effects on (still running in 1080p mind you) and a set with very low input lag and set to game or PC mode, the difference becomes noticiable.
Most manufactures are working to solve the dispairty between 4k and 1080p sets, so, all in time.
Thank you for stating that.
@Nicolai I would've used the correct terms, but for simplicity's sake, I decided to make it easier for those who don't understand. When I'm talking about input lag, I'm talking about the input delay between the controller and the time the TV takes to display the action. An example of this is on the Wii U Gamepad and the TV. The Wii U Gamepad will always display the input before the TV, so when you switch to the TV, you can notice it's a tad slower (by a few milliseconds, depending on the TV).
Ah, that makes more sense. In short, the TV is just slow in general? So that's why I always do competitive fighting/platforming better on the gamepad!
I agree. Plus, the more processes the TV is running, the more lag there is when playing video games. I'm saying this because most, if not all 4K TV's run in 120 FPS or higher with many other processes in the background that make controller inputs lag.
That doesn't quite make sense to me. Why would the controller input lag if the game console is receiving the controller's input? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV doesn't have anything to do with the game controller's input; all it does is display images that the console tells it to.
Last year's Vizio P series 4k had a very small amount of lag if you hooked your console up correctly, so congrats for them....
But with most modern TV's, artifical processing happens to clean up the picture or ntroduce certain effects, all of this usually create a good amount of input lag between your controller and the movements on screen. Most 4k's are even more intensive due to the processing increase.
However, most people don't even notice the lag, but if you gave them a comparison between a laggy 4k with all effects on (still running in 1080p mind you) and a set with very low input lag and set to game or PC mode, the difference becomes noticiable.
Most manufactures are working to solve the dispairty between 4k and 1080p sets, so, all in time.
Thank you for stating that.
@Nicolai I would've used the correct terms, but for simplicity's sake, I decided to make it easier for those who don't understand. When I'm talking about input lag, I'm talking about the input delay between the controller and the time the TV takes to display the action. An example of this is on the Wii U Gamepad and the TV. The Wii U Gamepad will always display the input before the TV, so when you switch to the TV, you can notice it's a tad slower (by a few milliseconds, depending on the TV).
Ah, that makes more sense. In short, the TV is just slow in general? So that's why I always do competitive fighting/platforming better on the gamepad!
Yeah, modern televisions are more or less computers, they run methods to clean up the picture, but that in turns slows the recognition between your controller and the telle.
Most people wouldn't care until you gave them a comparison test, and than you would probably notice until it slowly bugs the crap out of you, lol.
I say 4K matters, but the technology isn't implemented enough as far as screen enhancements go like faster response times and compatibility with other devices. If one thing is missing from the package, it's a no go for me.
If I got a 4K TV, there is no guarantee that my Sony STR-DN1030 would run 4K at 60FPS, in the future, even though all it needs to get is a software update update to HDMI 2.0 in order to run 4K.
They sell 4K audio receivers, but all the ones that have HDMI 1.4a and can receive firmware updates are just being left there, which is why 4K has already abandoned some devices. A 3D bluray player wth firmware capability should already be running 4K discs, but that isn't really the case. People already 4K stuff in their homes, to say the least.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
Ah, that makes more sense. In short, the TV is just slow in general? So that's why I always do competitive fighting/platforming better on the gamepad!
That's the same case for me too. When I play Mario Kart 8, I always have a harder time getting the start-up boost, but on the Gamepad, I never have that problem and I get the full boost nearly all the time. Also, when it comes to shooters, it turns out that the opponent can get 1-to-2 shots more because of the input delay from the TV, which is very crucial as those shots can really determine the outcome of the match.
Wi-Fi Game List:
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Splatoon
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS + All DLC
Mario Kart 8 + All DLC
Mario Golf: World Tour + All DLC
Mario Kart 7
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon
Wii U & 3DS Game Wish List:...
3DS Friend Code: 3737-9553-9610 | Nintendo Network ID: Toadette75
I think it's a waste of money and a whole lot of nothing special
I agree. Plus, the more processes the TV is running, the more lag there is when playing video games. I'm saying this because most, if not all 4K TV's run in 120 FPS or higher with many other processes in the background that make controller inputs lag.
EXCEPT the Vizio 4k local dimming full array P series, which does 17-19ms(roughly 1 frame) of lag when using HDMI 5 with Game Latency turned ON.
There are no picture quality comprises either, you can adjust to your liking.
Vizio in terms of bang for your buck is king IMO, sure it won't rival the 2500+ dollar premium sets, but your still getting a very good set and a very reasonable price. Great for gaming.
Vizio and Sony make the best gaming televisions IMO, I had a Samsung 7150, but the degradation during game mode, as well as the lack of sharpness in PC mode, kinda killed the deal. With the effects turned on, the lag was pretty noticeable. Outside of that it had a great picture and was the perfect set for a non-gamer.
Do people's TVs actually break on them? Seriously, in all the TVs we've had in our house, only one could be considered broken (super old CRT that doesn't display colour anymore.) For an object that just sits there forever, I wouldn't expect it to break for decades.
As for 4k, no I don't care. Until the rest of the industry adopts it, there's no point wasting your money on one. Also, Australia's internet would need drastic improvements to make 4k streaming/downloading justifiable.
RedYoshi999
3DS Friend Code: 4682-8576-2407 | Nintendo Network ID: RedYoshi999
I'm very much against HD television already, so 4k is even more worthless and glorified to me.
HD, and by extension, 4k, would be vaguely interesting if they were worth anything outside of gaming (and that's not much already).
Almost all movies only receive a cosmetic improvement, and it's still nothing to miss. There's no movie in existence where HD actually improves the movie itself, so it's mostly nothing more than a commercial keyword to make the uninformed consumers squeal in excitement over stuff they don't actually understand.
For my taste, HD can go rot somewhere. It's a standard everybody has, but nobody uses, full of exaggerated misinformation. If companies were at least honest about it, I wouldn't mind, but they present it like the second coming, and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
This is literally the most uniformed rant I have ever seen posted on this website. You should feel embarrassed. Everything you said is incorrect, and I don't think a single rational person could agree with you on any of this.
My 85 year old grandparents who bought an HD television several years ago can tell a major difference between standard definition and HD, yet you, a 24 year old guy who plays video games cannot? Are you legally blind?
4K televisions look incredible in store, but as many others have said, there is no real content for them yet.
I'm very much against HD television already, so 4k is even more worthless and glorified to me.
HD, and by extension, 4k, would be vaguely interesting if they were worth anything outside of gaming (and that's not much already).
Almost all movies only receive a cosmetic improvement, and it's still nothing to miss. There's no movie in existence where HD actually improves the movie itself, so it's mostly nothing more than a commercial keyword to make the uninformed consumers squeal in excitement over stuff they don't actually understand.
For my taste, HD can go rot somewhere. It's a standard everybody has, but nobody uses, full of exaggerated misinformation. If companies were at least honest about it, I wouldn't mind, but they present it like the second coming, and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
This is literally the most uniformed rant I have ever seen posted on this website. You should feel embarrassed. Everything you said is incorrect, and I don't think a single rational person could agree with you on any of this.
My 85 year old grandparents who bought an HD television several years ago can tell a major difference between standard definition and HD, yet you, a 24 year old guy who plays video games cannot? Are you legally blind?
4K televisions look incredible in store, but as many others have said, there is no real content for them yet.
While I don't totally agree in everything Mr. Memaryu said, I can understand not being able to see the difference in HD. I wasn't until I got used to it a few years ago from playing so many Wii U games. I don't have the best eyesight, and I'm sure there are plenty of elderly folk somewhere who see better than I can.
I'm very much against HD television already, so 4k is even more worthless and glorified to me.
HD, and by extension, 4k, would be vaguely interesting if they were worth anything outside of gaming (and that's not much already).
Almost all movies only receive a cosmetic improvement, and it's still nothing to miss. There's no movie in existence where HD actually improves the movie itself, so it's mostly nothing more than a commercial keyword to make the uninformed consumers squeal in excitement over stuff they don't actually understand.
For my taste, HD can go rot somewhere. It's a standard everybody has, but nobody uses, full of exaggerated misinformation. If companies were at least honest about it, I wouldn't mind, but they present it like the second coming, and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
This is literally the most uniformed rant I have ever seen posted on this website. You should feel embarrassed. Everything you said is incorrect, and I don't think a single rational person could agree with you on any of this.
My 85 year old grandparents who bought an HD television several years ago can tell a major difference between standard definition and HD, yet you, a 24 year old guy who plays video games cannot? Are you legally blind?
4K televisions look incredible in store, but as many others have said, there is no real content for them yet.
While I don't totally agree in everything Mr. Memaryu said, I can understand not being able to see the difference in HD. I wasn't until I got used to it a few years ago from playing so many Wii U games. I don't have the best eyesight, and I'm sure there are plenty of elderly folk somewhere who see better than I can.
In the history of television, the two most important technical improvements are very likely the switch to color, and then the advent of high definition. To say you can't see the difference due to poor eye sight is one thing, but to go on a ludicrous tirade like that other guy did calling HD a scam and saying nobody cares about it and that it's a complete waste is another.
I'm very much against HD television already, so 4k is even more worthless and glorified to me.
HD, and by extension, 4k, would be vaguely interesting if they were worth anything outside of gaming (and that's not much already).
Almost all movies only receive a cosmetic improvement, and it's still nothing to miss. There's no movie in existence where HD actually improves the movie itself, so it's mostly nothing more than a commercial keyword to make the uninformed consumers squeal in excitement over stuff they don't actually understand.
For my taste, HD can go rot somewhere. It's a standard everybody has, but nobody uses, full of exaggerated misinformation. If companies were at least honest about it, I wouldn't mind, but they present it like the second coming, and the level of obsession some people show about it is really disgusting at times.
This is literally the most uniformed rant I have ever seen posted on this website. You should feel embarrassed. Everything you said is incorrect, and I don't think a single rational person could agree with you on any of this.
My 85 year old grandparents who bought an HD television several years ago can tell a major difference between standard definition and HD, yet you, a 24 year old guy who plays video games cannot? Are you legally blind?
4K televisions look incredible in store, but as many others have said, there is no real content for them yet.
You misunderstand me. Watching a movie in HD has no real benefit over SD. Anything a viewer needs to see can be recognized easily on an SDTV, with no details missing. Besides, I excluded gaming very clearly in regards to that.
The thing is that HD is more about marketing than actually utilizing the technology. There is NO movie that has stuff on camera you can only see in HD, so why even bother? I never said that there is no difference at all, but the difference is superficial, because it doesn't provide more, just a better "looking" version of the same.
I'm talking about details here. Take Matrix: Revolution for example. If you watch closely during the finale, you can see that the rain actually consists of matrix code strings. This detail is small already, yet I could easily see it on a regular SDTV, while an enormous number of people falsely claimed that it's only visible on HDTV. And that's what counts.
Do you see more in HD? No, you see it more detailed. But what value is there when you see each hair in someone's nose, or can count the leaves on a tree? If it was important to the movie proper, it would receive a focused shot.
And just to add it: I've played games like Bayonetta, Wonderful 101, and even Guilty Gear XRD on PS4 with an SDTV, and there were no problems whatsoever - same with the Avatar movie, Avengers, or Transformers. Everything looked great, nothing was too blurry to recognize, only the movies themselves weren't good, and didn't become better when I watched them on a friends' HD device.
@Kaze_Memaryu Have you considered that looking better is the whole point? The colours, textures, and resolution are all far superior. Not just the picture either, but a BD has over 5x the capacity of a DVD and typically has far greater audio quality as well.
And you're still wrong anyway. SD and HD have different aspect ratios. Most modern films are shot in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. A standard def TV is 4:3. This means that black bars will cover about half of the TV. Do you really not see any disadvantage of half of the surface area of your TV being invisible? And if it isn't invisible, if the movie is actually taking up your whole screen, guess what, it's cropped and you're missing entire chunks of the frame. So yes, you see more in HD.
Forums
Topic: 4k television, how much do you care?
Posts 21 to 40 of 52
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.