iPad Pro 3K, 4K HDTV, 5K iMac....

Kal-037

macrumors 68000
Original poster
So very odd and random question, but I'm confused iPad Pro 12.9" is about a 3K display and looks amazing when watching any video. I'm getting training for work in Home Theater systems and UHD TVs. I already have some moderate knowledge to HDTVs, but my question has always been, why do I still see the pixels on UHD and why do we need 4K blu-rays? The reason I ask this silly question is that I can watch a 1080p or higher video on an iPP or iMac 5K and the quality is still crystal clear, but when viewing blu-rays or anything on 4K TVs there pixelation and blurring and just less quality... and again I can see the pixels. (Which is just weird to me.) Why don't companies make their displays like what laptops and HD desktops do? Like with a Dell, Surface, iPad, or MacBook do, where the pixels are so close together and small you can't really discern them.
But watching Netflix or iTunes on 4K image quality is not as good. Again, I can watch my 1080p movies on my 3K iPP or an iMac 5k and again the picture quality is still crystal clear (and even better that some 4K TVs, and without extra accessories. )
What am I missing aside from the size difference? I almost feel like instead of buying a 4K or eventual 8K tv I'll just by a 27" iMac and use that to stream movies and such while also using it as a computer.... 27" obviously isn't huge, but it's not far off from my TV I have now.
Again this is a random question, sorry.
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,621
467
Estonia
IMHO it all boils down to viewing distance.
AFAIK for a 4K screen the closest you can sit, is 1 screen height. That makes 80cm for a 65" screen.
For FHD screen you need to sit farther, obviously.
During CRT times we were told to sit back to at least 2,5 times the screen diagonal.

PS I've got no training in this area, so take my words with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:

cruisin

macrumors 6502a
Apr 1, 2014
962
223
Canada
The ~3K iPad display will always seem sharp because the pixels are tiny and hard to see. If you had a TV like that it would be ~6K at 26 inches and ~9K at 39 inches, assuming you ignored the 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratio difference. This would cost an absurd amount of money and the full sharpness would be only visible at iPad viewing distances. How many people would sit that close to a TV and still be able to see the whole picture? 8K TVs should help a bit, but they won't come out any time soon.

Since TVs are 4K max it will never be as nice and it only gets worse as the TV gets bigger, unless you found a smaller 4K display at about 22 inches and you essentially have a iMac screen. You need to sit at the expected distance to make the TV look nice, sit too close and it looks bad and sit too far back and 4K looks the same as 1080p.

There could be an issue in that the TV doesn't have an upscaling feature (or it does and it is terrible), which is what you would need to hide some of the pixelation and its what your computer uses when the image doesn't match the screen.
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,671
1,845
192.168.1.1
^^Yep. A television has bigger pixels - that's the only way to get a 2K or 4K picture to stretch to 65" inches across. Sit close and you'll notice those large pixels.

The other difference may be in how your getting 4K to your TV as well. Streaming from a highlay compressed source like YouTube or 4K Netflix isn't going to look as good as an uncompressed (or minimally-compressed) video stream like the new UHD-BluRay. I have a 65" 4K TV and a 4K UHD-BluRay player. I received my copy of "Deadpool" on 4K disc last week and must say it looks incredible compared to the 1080p version when viewed at the same distance.

But take that same 1080p picture and compress it down to a 12.9" screen like the iPad Pro and it'll look pretty darn good since the pixels are so small and packed in to a small space (space between pixels is also smaller).

To look "real" to the human eye at typical modern TV sizes though, you'll need at least 8K resolution at 60+ fps and that isn't likely to come to the consumer space any time soon.
 

K4LK

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2009
406
77
^^Yep. A television has bigger pixels - that's the only way to get a 2K or 4K picture to stretch to 65" inches across. Sit close and you'll notice those large pixels.

The other difference may be in how your getting 4K to your TV as well. Streaming from a highlay compressed source like YouTube or 4K Netflix isn't going to look as good as an uncompressed (or minimally-compressed) video stream like the new UHD-BluRay. I have a 65" 4K TV and a 4K UHD-BluRay player. I received my copy of "Deadpool" on 4K disc last week and must say it looks incredible compared to the 1080p version when viewed at the same distance.

But take that same 1080p picture and compress it down to a 12.9" screen like the iPad Pro and it'll look pretty darn good since the pixels are so small and packed in to a small space (space between pixels is also smaller).

To look "real" to the human eye at typical modern TV sizes though, you'll need at least 8K resolution at 60+ fps and that isn't likely to come to the consumer space any time soon.
[doublepost=1464890134][/doublepost]How far away from your 65 do you sit? I've been thinking about 4K but my 65" Panasonic plasma produces a really nice image.
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,671
1,845
192.168.1.1
[doublepost=1464890134][/doublepost]How far away from your 65 do you sit? I've been thinking about 4K but my 65" Panasonic plasma produces a really nice image.
Around 8-9 feet, which is probably too far away for 4K, but it's the only way we can get the whole family (there's 5 of us) comfortably around the TV. When I'm watching alone and it's a 4K source that I'm really in to (like the aforementioned Deadpool), I move the ottoman out of the way and pull a chair up in front, so I'm maybe 4 feet away.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.