On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:49 AM Steve Timko <steveti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Close but not the same. > > > https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing > > UHD is very slightly below 4K. But from a consumer perspective, there's no real reason to get rid of a "UHD" TV because a 4K TV is available. Nobody is going to notice a practical difference between the two. Things like an OLED screen or HDR might make a difference, however. On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:44 AM Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca> wrote: > Agreed on the compression. > I happened to be quite close to my tv during a football game this > afternoon (I think 1080) and wow those Eagles got blurry in motion. > > I must confess that I like a bit of motion blur in sports coverage - or indeed anything. Motion smoothing settings on TV sets is the work of the devil. But yes, it's all about compression really. 4K is all very well, but if the compression is low for bandwidth reasons or whatever, then the picture is inferior. It's why a Blu Ray will just about always look better than the same material on Netflix (unless they've tried to squeeze too many episodes onto one disc or whatever). It's also worth saying that it's technically very challenging doing high resolution broadcasting live. With pre-recorded material, computers can compress the picture in such a way as to retain quality. But that takes time. In a live environment, it's much harder. There's a great technical blog that the BBC's R&D published about its broadcasting of the World Cup last summer in 4K: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2018-07-ultra-high-definition-uhd-viewing Adam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
