Thank you to our Sponsors
I still maintain 4k is utterly pointless outside the confines of high end pc gaming. Maybe useful on a Mac Pro when editing photoshop files , god knows ? Then again how many pc cards support 4k at high refresh rates ??
Or massive and I mean MASSIVE screens. Certainly a lot bigger than55 inches.
I don't know about the UK, but with SKY in Italy (same boxes AFAIK) you can choose to output 720p or 1080i.
Do you get poor results in both cases?
I don't know about the UK, but with SKY in Italy (same boxes AFAIK) you can choose to output 720p or 1080i.
Do you get poor results in both cases?
Yes it's the same in both cases. It's not limited to SKY. I have the same issues from any source I use, Sky, Bluray, Apple TV. It is an issue with the TV and how it is handling motion. Moxxey is probably correct in saying that it is a processing issue. I hope that is the case as it probably can be fixed with a software update.
Regarding Flappo's constant berating of 4K - The 4K feature is hopefully going to come in handy for the future but right now, for the price we've paid for the Avant we should expect it to at least produce 1080p as good as anything else out there. Certainly not worse! And right now my seven year old Panasonic produces better motion. This thread isn't about the feasibility of 4K but rather the Avants current performance with 1080.
I don't know about the UK, but with SKY in Italy (same boxes AFAIK) you can choose to output 720p or 1080i.
Do you get poor results in both cases?
What about 1080p? Does SKY not support that? In the US it's been a long time since the highest resolution on cable or satellite was 1080i. Things went to 1080p a number of years ago.
Obviously operating at the native resolution of the panel is best, as it requires no upconversion. When I bought my first flat panel (which I still have, a Panasonic plasma) 720p was only just out. I picked an ED panel, 480p, for two reasons. One, in side by side comparison with the more expensive Panasonic 720p sets, the 480p EDTV had much better contrast, black level, and shadow detail. And since DVD was my primary source for movies, DVD being 480p it required no conversion to match the display resolution. And the picture was incredible, and still looks wonderful, only falling down when compared with my big VT series Panasonic.
480p from DVDs upconverted by my Oppo to 1080p looks quite good, but not as good as BluRay 1080p. Cable varies depending on the source material, some is obviously 1080p, some obviously upconverted, but even 1080p cable due to compression does not look as good as BluRay.
4k requires some serious upconversion processing it would seem, with all the attendant issues that can create.
When I compared the 480p to the 720p sets on DVD, I noticed that even with the sharpness dialed down, the 480p set, if you sat far enough away to not see the pixels (i.e. normal viewing distance) the 480p set looked like it had higher resolution, was sharper without the ringing that dialing up sharpness can produce. Maybe that was due to the upconversion, maybe to something else. In photography there is a thing called accutance. It is basically a subjective perception of sharpness and detail. Films that are "inferior" to others in terms of resolution, lines per mm or such, often look sharper and clearer than extremely fine grained film. The eye tends to perceive the grain, at a distance, as increased edge sharpness. Perhaps we have similar situations in video, it would seem to follow. (Yes, you see again my interest in human perceptual issues, audio and video!)
What about 1080p? Does SKY not support that? In the US it's been a long time since the highest resolution on cable or satellite was 1080i. Things went to 1080p a number of years ago.
US channels (cable and terrestrial) broadcast in 1080i (they use a digital standard called ATSC instead of DVB) at 30 Hz (60 fields). The transport stream is usually MPEG-2, while in Europe we tend to broadcast in H.264.
1080p is used by satellite providers but only for on-demand content, not real-time broadcast.
In my tests at a dealer, the upscaling of Blu-ray content (1080p/24 played from my Mac) was impressive. High-quality 720p was below par. Noticeable banding on many parts of the screen... quite disappointing and one of the reasons for postponing my purchase.
a good article here regarding marketing oversell on refresh rate - all is not what it seems when you look at those numbers.
I don't know about the UK, but with SKY in Italy (same boxes AFAIK) you can choose to output 720p or 1080i.
Do you get poor results in both cases?
What about 1080p? Does SKY not support that? In the US it's been a long time since the highest resolution on cable or satellite was 1080i. Things went to 1080p a number of years ago.
Obviously operating at the native resolution of the panel is best, as it requires no upconversion. When I bought my first flat panel (which I still have, a Panasonic plasma) 720p was only just out. I picked an ED panel, 480p, for two reasons. One, in side by side comparison with the more expensive Panasonic 720p sets, the 480p EDTV had much better contrast, black level, and shadow detail. And since DVD was my primary source for movies, DVD being 480p it required no conversion to match the display resolution. And the picture was incredible, and still looks wonderful, only falling down when compared with my big VT series Panasonic.
480p from DVDs upconverted by my Oppo to 1080p looks quite good, but not as good as BluRay 1080p. Cable varies depending on the source material, some is obviously 1080p, some obviously upconverted, but even 1080p cable due to compression does not look as good as BluRay.
4k requires some serious upconversion processing it would seem, with all the attendant issues that can create.
When I compared the 480p to the 720p sets on DVD, I noticed that even with the sharpness dialed down, the 480p set, if you sat far enough away to not see the pixels (i.e. normal viewing distance) the 480p set looked like it had higher resolution, was sharper without the ringing that dialing up sharpness can produce. Maybe that was due to the upconversion, maybe to something else. In photography there is a thing called accutance. It is basically a subjective perception of sharpness and detail. Films that are "inferior" to others in terms of resolution, lines per mm or such, often look sharper and clearer than extremely fine grained film. The eye tends to perceive the grain, at a distance, as increased edge sharpness. Perhaps we have similar situations in video, it would seem to follow. (Yes, you see again my interest in human perceptual issues, audio and video!)
The max setting currently on Sky is 1080i. But the motion problems that the Avant currently has is with all resolutions, 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p. And I have found the problems persist across all my devices.
Leaving aside Flappo's issue of whether there is 4K content available to watch and the fact that, for a 55" screen, you need to sit closer than ~7ft to see the added details afforded by the extra pixels - the fact that there are four times as many pixels as a 1080 screen means quite a step up in processing power to work out what all of the pixels are going to display when upscaling. Maybe B&O are just trying too hard with the upscaling algorithms given that most people will be sitting far enough away that they couldn't distinguish the picture from a 1080 version anyway. The simplest algorithm could actually give the best overall results if they are struggling to implement anything more complex in real time!
Thanks for the info Moxxey. I'm simply using freedom of speech and telling the truth when it comes to my observation of competitors refresh rates. LG is 200, Sony is 600 and Panasonic 2000! Samsung is 600 upwards that's all. Surely all of you complaining continuously about your products that are always not performing as they should is way more damaging to B&O. And yet you guys are stupid or so material obsessed to keep on buying the brand!
I enjoy reading the forum from time to time and try and point out why something may not be performing. But I don't buy from B&O as I don't feel their products are up to my standards or taste in terms of performance!
thanks for the feedback. Understand you are the ultimate authority. Freedom of speech.
The return of Mr Paul W,
Spend your time on the apple or bose forum,I am sure you can point out suggestions for improving their performance.
At least you would be speaking from a users perspective and experience,as you only rate B&o on your experience of owning a century and a bv 6-22 years ago!Hardly an up to date comparison.Have you ever used any of the products you compare?
Spec sheets mean nothing,eyes and ears are the best judge,also manufacturers manipulate them.
Look at a midi hifi from argos,1000 watts rms,it must be better than a lower powered system.I don't think so.
You must be logged in as a BeoWorld member to post replies to forum threads.
Register to access the forums, reference material, and exclusive member benefits — including our monthly prize draw.
Become a Member