TR Forums

Vizio has unveiled its 2016 P Series lineup, with a 50" starting at 999.99. These are 10-bit, 4K displays with HDR support (supposedly Dolby Vision out of the box and HDR10 coming via firmware within 90 days or so), and Wide Color Gamut. Also, they are full array, local dimming (FALD). Depending on how well these review and test out, I would consider a 50" P series for my next display upgrade.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-f ... r-tvs.html

Pagey wrote:

Vizio has unveiled its 2016 P Series lineup, with a 50" starting at 999.99. These are 10-bit, 4K displays with HDR support (supposedly Dolby Vision out of the box and HDR10 coming via firmware within 90 days or so), and Wide Color Gamut. Also, they are full array, local dimming (FALD). Depending on how well these review and test out, I would consider a 50" P series for my next display upgrade.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-f ... r-tvs.html

That's a very nice start. Now for a receiver that can handle this stuff...

Airmantharp wrote:

Pagey wrote:

Vizio has unveiled its 2016 P Series lineup, with a 50" starting at 999.99. These are 10-bit, 4K displays with HDR support (supposedly Dolby Vision out of the box and HDR10 coming via firmware within 90 days or so), and Wide Color Gamut. Also, they are full array, local dimming (FALD). Depending on how well these review and test out, I would consider a 50" P series for my next display upgrade.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-f ... r-tvs.html

That's a very nice start. Now for a receiver that can handle this stuff...

Umm, yeah, about that... Blu-ray.com and highdefdigest.com have some of the first UHD Blu-ray reviews up. So far, for me, the reviews seem very "mixed bag". Most of the discs are sourced from 2K DIs and are simply upconverted to 4K. So detail, though somewhat better, is not necessarily staggering. However, the HDR feature seems to offer more promise than the additional resolution. The one technical issue I've seen reported in numerous disc reviews is the "handshake" between the display and the Samsung UHD Blu-ray player failing multiple times before finally agreeing that everyone is HDCP compliant.

blahsaysblah wrote:

From DP website: Will DisplayPort 1.3 enable further performance enhancements to 4K UHD displays?

Yes, when including the new HBR3 link rate option, DisplayPort 1.3 will enable a 4K UHD display to operate at a 120Hz refresh rate using 24-bit pixels, or a 96Hz refresh rate using 30-bit pixels.

...
You need DP 1.3 to get 10 bit color support. Display port 1.4 does not change any physical characteristics.

DP 1.4 adds support for Rec 2020 color space. DP 1.4 screens wont be ready for a while.

From AMD Reddit AMA: Will the cards come with DP1.4?

They will come with DP1.3. There is a 12-18 month lag time between the final ratification of a display spec and the design/manufacture/testing of silicon compliant with that spec. This is true at all levels of the display industry. For example: DP 1.3 was finished in September, 2014.

...

HDMI 2.0 adds Rec 2020 support, HDMI 2.0a adds HDR support but it does not have the bandwidth beyond 4k@30/10 bit w/o tricks.



TL;DR:
HDMI 2.0a gets you access to the new colors for movie viewing rates.
DP 1.3 gets you bandwidth for gaming but not Rec 2020 color space.

That was super helpful. Thanks

It sucks that Thunderbolt 3 is stuck with DP 1.2.

A friend of mine has a 60" 4K TV, LG brand but I don't know the model.
When it arrived we mounted it on the wall and tested it with a few "movies" and tested it as a second monitor attached to his desktop.

Finding movies in both 1080p and 2160p was not easy but a lot of porn is available in many resolutions ... so out came the credit card and we download two porn "movies", each in 2160p, 1080p and 720p.

Sitting on the couch about 2.5m from the TV we couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. However, when we paused the movies, the still images were much better from the 2160p source files than from the 1080p files.

We could easily tell the difference between 720p and 2160p content but that appears to be largely a result of the way the TV scaled up the video. Further evidence for was that the 720p content looked better when we used software to scale it up to 2160p and then played the new 2160p clip. Ie., we had two 2160p clips: one downloaded at 2160p and one scaled up from 720p by the editing software: the scaled up 2160p clip was not as good as the native 2160p clip but it was much better than playing the 720p clip and letting the TV do the scaling.

When watching TV provided by the cable company there was no benefit from the 2160p TV - all of the HD content provided over cable was a mix of 1080p and 720p.

When using the TV as a second monitor for things other than watching movies/porn the benefits of 2160p resolution was the most noticeable: text and images were crisp and clear. My friend had previously has a 60" 1080p TV as his second monitor, with a 30" 2160p monitor as the primary monitor and there was a huge benefit to having the resolution of the new TV match the resolution of the primary monitor.

Rob_Stow2 wrote:

Finding movies in both 1080p and 2160p was not easy but a lot of porn is available in many resolutions ... so out came the credit card and we download two porn "movies", each in 2160p, 1080p and 720p.

Finally, we have an honest man on the current uses of 4k.

Redocbew wrote:

Rob_Stow2 wrote:

Finding movies in both 1080p and 2160p was not easy but a lot of porn is available in many resolutions ... so out came the credit card and we download two porn "movies", each in 2160p, 1080p and 720p.

Finally, we have an honest man on the current uses of 4k.

And he was probably quite prepared to point the finger at me if his wife came home while we were testing his new TV with that porn.

Vizio has officially launched their 2016 M series lineup. It will support Dolby Vision HDR but, apparently, not a wider color gamut. It has has half the FALD zones as compared to the 2016 P series.

http://www.avsforum.com/vizio-announces ... by-vision/

I also received my first UHD BD/BD combo pack in the mail yesterday: The Revenant. Now I just need a player and display to enjoy the UHD disc!

Rob_Stow2 wrote:

A friend of mine has a 60" 4K TV, LG brand but I don't know the model.
When it arrived we mounted it on the wall and tested it with a few "movies" and tested it as a second monitor attached to his desktop.

Finding movies in both 1080p and 2160p was not easy but a lot of porn is available in many resolutions ... so out came the credit card and we download two porn "movies", each in 2160p, 1080p and 720p.

Sitting on the couch about 2.5m from the TV we couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. However, when we paused the movies, the still images were much better from the 2160p source files than from the 1080p files.

We could easily tell the difference between 720p and 2160p content but that appears to be largely a result of the way the TV scaled up the video. Further evidence for was that the 720p content looked better when we used software to scale it up to 2160p and then played the new 2160p clip. Ie., we had two 2160p clips: one downloaded at 2160p and one scaled up from 720p by the editing software: the scaled up 2160p clip was not as good as the native 2160p clip but it was much better than playing the 720p clip and letting the TV do the scaling.

When watching TV provided by the cable company there was no benefit from the 2160p TV - all of the HD content provided over cable was a mix of 1080p and 720p.

When using the TV as a second monitor for things other than watching movies/porn the benefits of 2160p resolution was the most noticeable: text and images were crisp and clear. My friend had previously has a 60" 1080p TV as his second monitor, with a 30" 2160p monitor as the primary monitor and there was a huge benefit to having the resolution of the new TV match the resolution of the primary monitor.

I don't think that porn, regardless of resolution would be shot on a caliber of camera that would really help the difference in resolution matter. Sure there are tons of video recorders that capture 4K and above but that doesn't mean its a 4K recording of similar quality to a better film alternative or proper cinema level rig.

What I guess I should really say is I've easily seen a difference on screens that shouldn't show a difference if using proper source images. To be most direct (give the dirth of quality 4K video sources) the easiest way to compare image quality to me is with a video game. Something like a DOTA 2, that was my experience. Seeing that isometric game in 4K was AMAZING. Like a picture. It was on a 4K 27" panel... who new that you could even sense that leap, I sure didn't expect 4K to matter in anything under 30 inches. Diablo 3 sure doesn't scale well cause of the character assets being such low quality to start, but the worlds look amazing. Star Craft 2 is a great strategy game to see in 4K as they are continually improving the assets in that game. If you like isometric PoV games then 4K is a huge boost.

Shooters on the other had suffer from greater draw distance restrictions that are ever more apparent as resolution increases. So you end up waiting for new rendering standards in those games for the most part before they matter. 3rd person games don't fair much better.

But given currently that isometric games of different sorts are my favorite I hope we see a better distribution of and support for 4K.

Best monitor possible would be a ultra wide with the vertical 2160 4K standard pixel ratio. Rather than the 2K 1440 vertical that is in all sets now. That would get us something akin to 6K in terms of total pixels, with a monitor that could fit a standard 4K image and embrace the wider format at the same time.

This feels off-topic since we've been geeking out on UHD Blu-ray, etc., but it's true to the title of the thread:

I'm picking out displays for the conference rooms here at work. I'm considering up to 84" for the largest room, with a ten seat conference table. My fears:
- 1080p will be too low resolution to look good
- 2160p will be too tiny to see for the people in the back, or too fuzzy from bad scaling

I remember reading that the scaling isn't so great on Windows 8 or Windows 8.1. Are things any better today?

Which would you choose for a conference room that spends a lot of time looking at Google Finance? 70" or 84"? 1080p or 2160p?

4K at 84" sounds like it'll be fine to me, really.

And DPI scaling has improved in Win10, if you're scaling to 125-150% tops.

Having finally seen a couple of good 4k displays, it seems HDR is the most compelling reason to upgrade from yer olde 1080P. At normal viewing distances the effect of HDR is far more noticeable than the increase in resolution or color depth.

Problem is we now have several competing HDR standards. Dolby Vision vs UHD Alliance. Hopefully majority of displays will support both, and not end up like Freesync vs G-Sync.

The UHD Blu-ray movie you are attempting to play is part of The Way It's Meant To Be Viewed program, not the Movie Evolved program. As such, you may experience dynamic range fluctuations on your UHD Premium display. To improve your experience, purchase a Dolby Vision display from an authorized retailer.

Milo Burke wrote:

This feels off-topic since we've been geeking out on UHD Blu-ray, etc., but it's true to the title of the thread:

I'm picking out displays for the conference rooms here at work. I'm considering up to 84" for the largest room, with a ten seat conference table. My fears:
- 1080p will be too low resolution to look good
- 2160p will be too tiny to see for the people in the back, or too fuzzy from bad scaling

I remember reading that the scaling isn't so great on Windows 8 or Windows 8.1. Are things any better today?

Which would you choose for a conference room that spends a lot of time looking at Google Finance? 70" or 84"? 1080p or 2160p?

Do a 1080p signal AA it up to 4K and you'll have a nice soft image, no giant pixels. Its the best of both worlds till scaling is ironed out. But FTR, its getting better by leaps and bounds all the time.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Love this monitor:

http://techreport.com/news/30076/philip ... -practical

But still wish for that 2160 pixel vertical ultra wide.

Anybody buy a UHD Blu-ray player yet?

I do not have a UHD BD player yet, as I am waiting to see what Panasonic's model brings to the table this summer. Right now, assuming you're in the States, Samsung's player is all you can lay hands on. I do, however, have my first UHD BD/BD combo: The Revenant. I must confess that having an actual well-mastered UHD BD title in hand ups the desire to get a new display and player.

Movies are good, but PC games is super strong. Wonder when OLED will be more manageable price wise and widely available???

That tech is the cat's pajamas.

At home I have a Sony 55xbr850c and I love it. I prematurely went to 4k for the most part, but I'm happy with the decision. I decided to wait for UHD bluray to have more competition and lower price (though first adopters are NOT getting screwed as bad as normal). My wife still teases me since after a year I still "damn the picture on this TV is good" LOL

On another note...we have one of these at work http://www.vizio.com/rs120b3.html and if you want to see how amazing things can be in 4k, find someplace that has this as a demo and try it. We have it in a room on our CEO level with enough tech to make your ears bleed (figuratively AND literally) with full Atmos surround sound and about a dozen sources for trying things out. We demo'd Fury Road in UHD and it was mindblowing. Easily as good as sitting in the theater. I don't work retail so it's not abused and we had guys tuning and calibrating it for weeks so it's perfect. Just...wow.

The more I learn about OLED, the more incredible it sounds. It just wins in every way. But ... if longevity and color shift remain issues ... are any of you willing to invest in it? I know I'm not. And with all the research dollars thrown at this, I'm sure if there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented already.


I admit, I'm super stoked about the resolution advance to 4k. I have good eyesight (with contacts), I sit closer to my TV than most, and I pay attention to the subtleties, like line irregularities and screen-door effects.

But, just as big for me (and bigger for everyone who sits further from their TV) are better pixels. I can't wait to see WCG and HDR in person!


I'm excited for better pixels in computer displays too: http://techreport.com/review/29404/amd- ... ext-year/2

A variable refresh 2560x1440 HDR 90+ Hz sounds perfect to me. Paired with a 1070 or equivalent?

Milo Burke wrote:

The more I learn about OLED, the more incredible it sounds. It just wins in every way. But ... if longevity and color shift remain issues ... are any of you willing to invest in it? I know I'm not. And with all the research dollars thrown at this, I'm sure if there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented already.

Just look at the production history of Plasma, the last troubled superior tech for displays. From what was possible for early adopters to the last 3 generations of the product. When the 600hz panels were developed plasma became hands down the best panel option for all large displays. OLED is already outpacing early plasma in terms of reliability. Early plasma was horrible joke, lol. OLED isn't bad so much as it comparatively is loosing to LCD, early plasma was horrible, between burn in and other problems the panels just didn't last without lots of TLC. OLED isn't so much of an issue (because allot of the plasma tech migrated over ironically) its more that it just isn't rated for as long as LCD. But LCD and Quantum dot is still fundamentally the same tech as 15 years ago... its super refined.

Seeing the success of OLED on phones its clear that it will be the future tech. They already have overcome so many of the issues. And the remaining ones are ironically (blue pixel issues) are not unique unto OLED if you look more into it. Its an issue for production that will be resolved eventually because it will benefit allot of associated tech. Yields have increased so much from 2012 when they were under 10 percent, and dimming of the screen is similarly getting better, and was not an issue just for OLED (plasma too)

Kami,

I look forward to all these advancements.

You can have my Panny VT30 plasma when you pry it from my hands.

http://www.ravepubs.com/5120-is-not-4k- ... s-not-uhd/

good read on aspect ratios and 4K resolutions and above.

any news on these 4k 120hz+ VRR monitors?

HappySOB wrote:

any news on these 4k 120hz+ VRR monitors?

'Nuther year or two? We don't have a DP spec implemented that can handle that yet do we, especially with HDR/10bit thrown in?

Airmantharp wrote:

HappySOB wrote:

any news on these 4k 120hz+ VRR monitors?

'Nuther year or two? We don't have a DP spec implemented that can handle that yet do we, especially with HDR/10bit thrown in?

Displayport 1.3 and 1.4 have the bandwidth to run 4K at 120hz.