Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum > Tech Talk
Ivrnet

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2017, 08:44 AM   #81
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

Thanks I'll try this tonight. I already put all my component hdmi back through the receiver so if I just hook up the hdmi cable to arc on tv and hdmi out on receiver I'll know the ARC settings work if I play Netflix through tv and get surround sound?
MacDaddy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 08:49 AM   #82
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Yes, you should also be able to adjust the receiver volume by using the TV remote. That's an easy way to verify.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - hold on tight, we're going in dry!
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 08:51 AM   #83
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

The setup you gave me is something that should be visible on the tv screen?
MacDaddy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 09:01 AM   #84
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

For the Onkyo? Ya, it should have an onscreen display to do the config.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - hold on tight, we're going in dry!
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 03:23 PM   #85
psicodude
First Line Centre
 
psicodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Check the TV as well. It has 3 settings: cec, arc, or auto. Play with all of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
psicodude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 07:21 PM   #86
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

@MacDaddy77, go download the owner's manual for your TV and follow the instructions to enable ARC.

https://support.vizio.com/s/article/...language=en_US

1. From the System menu, tap CEC. The CEC menu is displayed.
2. Tap on CEC:
- Select Enable to use the Tablet Remote to control CEC devices connected to HDMI.
- Select ARC Only for plug and play of an audio device connected to the HDMI ARC input. The ARC setting does not support video devices connected to the audio device (Select Enable to enable support for these devices).
- Select Disable to turn CEC off.
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 07:32 PM   #87
MacDaddy77
First Line Centre
 
MacDaddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Exp:
Default

I've tried everything and it's not working. At this point I'm just going to go get a 4k receiver and plug everything into it and be ready to go
MacDaddy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 11:06 PM   #88
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
The Fonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Literally all you need to know as a threshold.

.
Quite possibly the worst chart I've ever seen on the internet.
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 03-18-2017, 03:06 PM   #89
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Quite possibly the worst chart I've ever seen on the internet.
I think part of the problem is that it just isn't relevant to the discussion most times that it's brought up. The chart isn't wrong, it's just not helpful information anymore when deciding whether or not to upgrade.

Back in the days when it was between 720p and 1080p, you could argue the point much more effectively because there were fewer outside factors that relied you pick one over the other.

With the discussion moving to 1080p vs 4K sets these days, there's a new variable to consider: HDR. It's not just about resolution and viewing distance anymore. If you want the widest possible color production, you need a 4K set that supports HDR and/or Dolby Vision with a true 10-bit panel. 1080p sets do not offer HDR, period.

Content that supports 4K and HDR is now becoming more widely available, with Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, as well as the two major consoles. I can't wait for HBONow to offer it.

I think the real practicality of the viewing distance vs resolution chart is this:

Given the placement of your screen relative to your seating position, is there a benefit moving from 1080p to 4k strictly with respect to resolution?
> If yes, buy the new TV.
> If no, can you afford to buy a 4KTV with HDR10 and/or Dolby Vision (true 10-bit panel)?
--> If yes, buy the TV.
--> If no, save up until you can afford a proper HDR capable set, or they come down in price sufficiently that you can buy it at your current budget.
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 03:35 PM   #90
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Quite possibly the worst chart I've ever seen on the internet.
Try this one then.



I'm sorry if it makes you feel bad about your 4k TV purchase that you were really hyped on. Facts are sometimes inconvenient. FWIW, I just bought a 4k LED set as well, but I'm not under any illusions that the appreciable picture quality is going to be as good as my four-year-old F8500 Plasma, and that's despite the fact that I've deliberately set my room up so that if I can move to 5' from the screen if I want to. It's just reality: I have 20/20 eyesight, but the human eye is the lower resolution device.

4K was a gimmick to begin with to sell people new TVs when it came out, and remains mostly a gimmick, not just because of the lack of content. You could make them in a variety of sizes for much less money and thus enjoy much more margin than on a plasma or OLED set, so the industry pushed it as revolutionary, game-changing tech. The truth is, 90% of people either are not buying a panel large enough to see any major benefit, and most people's living rooms aren't set up to enjoy that benefit even if they did get a 75" or bigger screen - and that's assuming you have good eyesight to start with.

If you're part of the 10% who are buying a huge panel and have set your media room up to sit 7' or less from your screen, congrats - you absolutely are going to get your money's worth once the content becomes more readily available. But if you're not, don't lie to yourself. Now, if you want to, you can buy the best TV in picture quality ever created, one that puts even the last gen plasmas like the VT60 to shame - it's called LG's E6. OLED absolutely murders any LED panel ever made or that ever will be made, period.

4k definitely is a big deal, but more when it comes to projector technology. Once that becomes achievable for most people (e.g. doesn't cost ten grand), it will be a huge shift upward, because if you're watching a projected image at 120", you can sit at normal viewing distances, and it'll be a big improvement. On a 65" screen, you're just talking yourself into a placebo effect.
__________________
If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 05:25 PM   #91
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
The Fonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Try this one then.

Just measured, and I sit 15.5' away from my 50'' TV. According to your charts, there should not be a visible difference between 480p and 2160p. That's BS. I won't speak for 2160p as I've never seen it, but the difference I see between 480p and 1080p is immense. I can't even read the score on a 480p channel.

If I couldn't see a difference, I wouldn't be paying for all of these HD channels. It's not like I'm locked into a contract - I'd drop the channels if the benefit wasn't visible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
I'm sorry if it makes you feel bad about your 4k TV purchase that you were really hyped on. Facts are sometimes inconvenient.
LOL. I live in the middle of nowhere, Saskatchewan. Do you think I own a 4k TV?
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 06:01 PM   #92
Barnet Flame
First Line Centre
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

I think if you are watching a sport like hockey, and I suspect a few people on this forum are, the higher the resolution the better. I'll bet the chart on the first page does not take that into account. However for most other viewing, I don't think 4K is worth the $. I have a 55" tv and have a UHD Netflix sub and am considering going back to 1080.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 06:08 PM   #93
Barnet Flame
First Line Centre
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

I think if you are watching a sport like hockey, and I suspect a few people on this forum are, the higher the resolution the better. I'll bet the chart on the first page does not take that into account. However for most other viewing, I don't think 4K is worth the $. I have a 55" tv and have a UHD Netflix sub and am considering going back to 1080.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 06:34 PM   #94
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Just measured, and I sit 15.5' away from my 50'' TV. According to your charts, there should not be a visible difference between 480p and 2160p.
Wrong - at 15.5' from your 50", your 1080p screen is indistinguishable from a panel of the same quality in 720p. That's still far, far better than a 480p feed. There is absolutely going to be a difference between a 640x480 resolution and a 1280x720. One is HD and the other isn't - it's literally three times as many pixels. So of course you see a marked difference. What you wouldn't see a difference between is a movie shown in 720p vs one shown in 1080p.

That doesn't even take into account the broadcast quality, which obviously varies based on what the network is putting through to you - even "HD" cable channels are often compressed until they're pretty much garbage, and the SD are even worse.
__________________
If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 01:09 PM   #95
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Those charts are based on pixel size compared to the resolving ability of the human eye (one arc minute for someone with 20/20 vision). I'm not sure that's necessarily a foolproof way to determine the perceptibility of increased resolution. For one, many people have better than 20/20 vision. But more importantly, humans can still detect differences well beyond that, even though they can't necessarily accurately resolve the detail. The ability to see misalignments in lines and shapes (known as vernier acuity) extends well below the level of resolving detail, to something like 1/8th of an arc minute for the average person. So while you wouldn't be able to see the actual pixels, you might be able to perceive minor jaggedness in lines from a lower resolution display that you wouldn't with a higher resolution.

Personally, I'm extremely skeptical of people's subjective impressions given how strong the placebo effect is. You see this all the time with audio. People will insist that their equipment or the resolution of their digital audio files affect the sound, but when they go through blind tests it's proven that they do no better than guessing in identifying which example uses the "superior" equipment or format. So someone comparing their new TV to their old one, or switching the resolution of the source and comparing isn't really conclusive at all.

However, I did read about one blind test that seemed pretty compelling. In it, they set up two 55" displays from Samsung, one that was 1080p and one that was 4K but both were the same type of display and from the same line. They calibrated them to remove as much of the non-resolution differences between them as possible (though they admit very minor differences in black levels and gamma response remained), built identical cabinets to house them in, and roped off an area 9 feet away for people to view them from. In the end, 97% of viewers were able to correctly identify the 4K screen. Though the testers readily admitted that the differences were pretty slight.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 01:11 PM   #96
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
However, I did read about one blind test that seemed pretty compelling. In it, they set up two 55" displays from Samsung, one that was 1080p and one that was 4K but both were the same type of display and from the same line. They calibrated them to remove as much of the non-resolution differences between them as possible (though they admit very minor differences in black levels and gamma response remained), built identical cabinets to house them in, and roped off an area 9 feet away for people to view them from. In the end, 97% of viewers were able to correctly identify the 4K screen. Though the testers readily admitted that the differences were pretty slight.
Do you happen to have a link to this? Because if someone wanted to convince me that I'm totally wrong this is exactly the sort of experiment they'd do.
__________________
If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 01:25 PM   #97
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Do you happen to have a link to this? Because if someone wanted to convince me that I'm totally wrong this is exactly the sort of experiment they'd do.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

I haven't looked into it too closely, so there may be problems with their methodology, but it seems pretty convincing to me.

It's also worth noting that they used extremely high quality sources which will highlight any differences in resolution. In real world conditions that might not happen.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Old 03-20-2017, 01:39 PM   #98
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

For that kind study I'd be interested on what distance people stopped being able to tell the difference. Because there's no question there's a point at which one wouldn't be able to it's just a question of where.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 03-20-2017, 01:41 PM   #99
Galakanokis
First Line Centre
 
Galakanokis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sadly not in the Dome.
Exp:
Default

9 feet is right at the edge of being able to see the difference. Go back a few more feet and try again. And, in most living rooms most people still sit 10-15 feet away from the screen so you lose even more. I had a couple of articles I linked somewhere else, I'll see if I can find them.
Galakanokis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016