[Tyson]

On a large enough screen, it's easy.  1080p was thought to be "good enough" by engineers making the standard, in the same way that in audio 16/44 was thought to be 'good enough'.  We're finding out in both cases, it's not. 

Obviously if you have TV or projector that doesn't have first rate optical elements, the difference is obscured by the playback equipment.  But as TV/Projector technology gets better, the difference in the formats becomes more apparent.  Exactly the same way it is with audio recordings. 

Re: blind or double blind testing - for an average viewer, they'll be able to see a difference, but the place that I think will get murky is which one is preferred.  Because more accurate is not always preferred in these types of test.  You see this in audio all the time.  For example, take 2 recordings, one with and another without compression.  Almost everyone can hear a difference.  But also very often the more compressed recording is preferred.  For me, I prefer the higher resolution and greater accuracy.  Others might not.  And that's fine - 1080p is certainly a cheaper way to get your entertainment.

[Zarkoff500]

I also can see an increase in detail and resolution with 4K vs 1080P, especially with HDR. I have an LG OLED and even on a un-calibrated screen, 4K HDR looks fantastic. FYI, I sit between six and ten feet from my 4k displays.

[A_shah]

This thread is intermingling projector, HDTV flat panel, and PC monitor users. And sources off disk, broadcast, and streaming. Perhaps best to specify some details when relating our personal observations.

My experience tends towards Tyson's "it's not 4k that's the game changer, it's HDR". However I will hasten to add I have respect for OlesonMD's and Consumer Reports' tests.

At many screen sizes and distances when "identical" source material is used it can be hard to spot the differences between 1080P and 4k when looking a the same movie. Where I fault the discussion is that "identical" is almost never that. To really do a peer reviewed science publication quality test on the limits of human visual perception of resolution one would need to control both the screen and the source. The projector or panel needs to be able to bypass all video processing, And the source needs to be an uncompressed 1080P or 4k feed. Out here in the real world with displays and sources available to us regular folks every display has what used to be super computer processing power re-sampling and reformatting the image to the native pixels it has. And copies of the same movie on DVD, Blu-ray, or Blu-ray 4kHDR has its unique mastering history. So if I compare 'The 5th Element' off DVD vs Blu-ray vs Amazon 4k UHD streaming and say 'yes' or 'no' I see a difference am I commenting on the format, or the display+signal chain, or source material? I maintain its a comment on all three of those elements.

My personal experience is a couple of months ago my beloved Panasonic 55" 1080P plasma died . Replaced it with a Sony 65" LED with full local LED back light dimming, 4k, and HDR. If I lived alone I would have gone OLED but I was tired of nagging the family about screen burn-in. We are a streaming household and most content is still at 1080p. I have not invested in a 4k disk player because we rent video content and do not buy it. When I get my videophile on and pull some 4k content off YouTube or Amazon it looks stunning. My guess is half that stunning picture is due to my shiny new Sony and half is the 4k and 8k video cameras used to create it.

One area where 4k HDR display surprises is my digital photo collection. I have a media PC and set it to run slide show screen savers. Occasionally a photo I know quite well will display with colors and details I was completely unaware existed on that image. That is the big reason I think HDR and the display panel engineering behind it is the big deal here.

Interesting to note ! I have a Panasonic 58" Plasma ( 11 years old ) which refuses to die on my me So in Frustration in spite of reservations from family members I opted to get LG C8 OLED 77" last year on sale . Panny still still sits in storage . Yes I could not find any difference in resolution between the Plasma & the OLED with naked eye but I do find the OLED to be much nicer ,  more  detail some content seems to look like 3D the OLED is softer in detail to the eye much better than the 1080P LCD 50 " LG  we have in the bedroom
My personal preference and conclusion is I prefer 4K HDR/Dolby  vision to 1080P . I don't have any experience with a projector  and large screen  beyond looking at them in Commercial environment- some how I have alway  felt the image is not as good as a large scale TV 

[Tyson]

Oh, I should also note that I have a 100" screen in a fully light-controlled room, and those things do make it easier to see these types of differences.

[Tom Bombadil]

The real test would be a double blind viewing. Have two displays, same TV's, same program material, but one 4K UHD video, and one showing a 1080P Blu-ray. Sit 6' from your 55" screen, and pick out the 4K.

I can do close to that in my setup.  And have done it.   I have both 1080 and 4K copies of the same movie.   I connected both a regular blu-ray and 4K blu-ray player to my TV, via different HDMI inputs.   I had a friend switch back and forth between those inputs, as I had my eyes closed.  They flipped a coin as to which one would be showing when I opened my eyes, also muting the sound between each switch.   

Not a perfect double blind, as the 4K disc might have been a better quality copy.  Or perhaps the 4K BR player is a bit better.   

In any case, in 10 tries, I correctly identified which one it was all 10 times, and did it easily within seconds.  There was just more detail on the 4K.

Now if I was sitting 10' away, or had a smaller TV, or my eyesight were 20/20 instead of 20/15, I think it would have been a more difficult challenge.

[wushuliu]

As is typical of most things audio-visual related, there are hidden factors that may play a bigger role in why 4k doesn't seem that much better than 1080p. One of those is that a lot of 4k source material was mastered in...2k. That's right. Your 4K UHD Blu ray is probably a 2K master upscaled to 4K.

Fact is most '4K' material you watch was edited/mastered in 2k because doing all of that in 4K/6K/8K is still extremely expensive and hard on computers. That includes Marvel movies, etc. They shoot on hi-res cameras but they edit using 2K 'DI' (digital intermediate) masters for theatrical release and which are then upscaled for 4k Blu-rays/select 4k theaters.

[Zarkoff500]

As is typical of most things audio-visual related, there are hidden factors that may play a bigger role in why 4k doesn't seem that much better than 1080p. One of those is that a lot of 4k source material was mastered in...2k. That's right. Your 4K UHD Blu ray is probably a 2K master upscaled to 4K.

Fact is most '4K' material you watch was edited/mastered in 2k because doing all of that in 4K/6K/8K is still extremely expensive and hard on computers. That includes Marvel movies, etc. They shoot on hi-res cameras but they edit using 2K 'DI' (digital intermediate) masters for theatrical release and which are then upscaled for 4k Blu-rays/select 4k theaters.

Which I think is a bunch of hooey to call it UHD! 4K! when very few releases were shot on 4K and finished on a 4K DI. When they are, I find the picture to be stunning.

[Tom Bombadil]

I know that I have no plans to purchase an 8K TV.   How much true 8K content will I have access to?  And how close & how large will the screen need to be to even see a minor difference?

[witchdoctor]

I have a 4K TCL TV with DV and HDR10. If Iplay a 1080P content the TV upscales it so it looks pretty close. Compared with my 1080P Optoma projector though it is a better picture.
I refuse to upgrade the PJ until next year when the new HDMI standard is released.

[charmerci]

I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion but I just watched a DVD extra where the filmmaker was saying that 4K was much better than 1080HD because he could do a full scene shot but if he wanted to do a close up or eliminate some side unnecessary background or distration, they could do it in editing with a "close-up" without any loss of quality/graininess.

So 4K (or better) at least is going to stay as storage gets cheaper.

[wushuliu]

I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion but I just watched a DVD extra where the filmmaker was saying that 4K was much better than 1080HD because he could do a full scene shot but if he wanted to do a close up or eliminate some side unnecessary background or distration, they could do it in editing with a "close-up" without any loss of quality/graininess.

So 4K (or better) at least is going to stay as storage gets cheaper.

Yes, 4k and higher is great for acquisition since it always for more flexibility in post-production. Camera resolutions will continue to get higher and higher but the delivery format will lag behind.

[Cowboy]

After just upgrading from an older 1080p DLP Mitsubishi to a JVC NX7 and 142" cinemascope screen, one would expect the picture to look much better just due to better brightness and much better black levels.  I debated the pixel-shifter Epson vs the Sony 4k, vs JVC NX line and ultimately went with JVC for the better blacks and the native 4k. 

It's the HDR that just jumps off the screen and for me it makes the move to 4k HDR as stunning as the jump to 1080p and Blu-ray 10-12 years ago.  That said, I've popped in a standard DVD/BD and felt the picture looked really really good, but I think the upscaling is helping the PQ as well (and again, it's just a massively better projector than what I had!).

I think the OP made the right call in going 4k...as a true side-by-side of a modern 1080p PJ vs 4k (native or pixel shift) HDR PJ would show significant improvements.

[BobM]

Just bought a 75" 4K Vizio TV this past Thanksgiving. I figured we keep TV's for about 10 years so I'm ready for the better signal quality when it comes.

That's the issue, my ATT Uverse signal seems to only get 1080P. When I stream Netflix after paying for the better signal I get 2080, but Hulu and Amazon Prime is only 1080P. I don't see anything or anyone actually giving me a 4K signal.

[Jeff_From_Michigan]

Just my experience in my room:

4K content streamed wirelessly to the Vizio P65F1 (not the latest model) is WAY sharper than the same content - Netflix or Prime - fed by Ethernet to the Apple TV (again, not the latest 4K model). Both 1080i and 1080p are noticeably inferior to the 2160 that I get wirelessly.

Again, I can only speak for my situation. YMMV.

[kenreau]

Yes, I think so. Imho, it is more than just the "4K" resolution improvements though.  Nearly equally appealing for me is the quality of the UHD/HDR color balancing video mastering and transfer.  I recently purchased a native 4K UHD/HDR JVC projector and it is leagues better than my prior 4 year old e-shift compensation model.  Also picked up a LG C9 TV and, same thing, incredible picture quality.  Watched the Dunkirk 4K blu-ray over the holidays and was flabbergasted at how great the picture quality is.

I'll also toss out that I think the physical media 4K blu rays and players are superior to current video streaming capabilities (too much compression).  Bought blu-ray discs of GoT, Breaking Bad, The Wire and a couple of other movies and all solid improvements over what I watched when they were on regular series TV broadcasts/streaming.  Back to the foundational garbage in, garbage out that everyone is familiar with on the audio side.

Kenreau

[skunark]

I've been debating this for a while, I have a Pioneer Elite Kuro plasma TV and a Samsung QLED Q80R and the plasma has some clear advantages in the black space.  I did expect that based on all of the reviews, but wanted QLED in the office to use as an occasional second computer monitor.  Another advantage for the plasma is better motion processing over Samsung's QLED panels.  The Q80R is 5" larger than the Kuro, so that is a huge advantage and so is the significantly cheaper price thirteen years later.

There is a clear difference on resolution, UHD does beat HD, but from my sofa, I don't know if it i'm okay with the motion blur.   I didn't see an advantage here of OLED over QLED but OLED did seem to be more on par with the black levels.  OLED did seem to be better, but for an office TV, it's a non-starter with burning.   

What I need to do is pick up a 4k blu-ray player and do the comparison over 4k vs 2k streaming.  Maybe that will force me to pick up an OLED tv during the next big sale.