UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 10 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 630Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 03:19 PM
Member
 
badgerdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bac522 View Post
Reminds me of the Megapixel wars for digital camera's about 10 years ago...got to a point where people started to realize that more megapixels don't always means a better picture....My Canon G2 at 4MP still blows away my 16MP point and shooter in terms of quality.

The reoccurring theme I keep hearing is that 4K is good for large screens only (60"+) but less than that and you see little difference. Like someone else mention, I'd rather see TV manufacturers focus on getting the most from 1080 sets since the majority of use don't have the room size, need, and/or luxury of getting a 60"+ size screen.
And the 3G/4G/LTE races the wireless carriers are engaged in. The reality it that the term "4G" means nothing because each carrier has their own standard. Even the LTE standards are slightly different. But, the carriers know that marketing 4G/LTE sells phones because 4 is greater than 3. When 5 is greater than 4, then the 5G phones will be all the rage even though a very small percentage of the population will be able to access that speed.

As for the the 4K, I can see why the set makers want to market that....it is a bigger number than 1080. Even the UHD moniker sounds way sexier than plain old HD....of which the cable/sat companies still make us pay extra for. Get ready for an extra pay tier on our programming for 4K. Suckers will pay for it too simply because they are told it is better.

I like technology advances. We live in an awesome time and I have been guilty of being sucking in to the spec wars. As an early adopter, I really do want the best technology first. It is in my DNA, but, I have to say that being in the market for a 70-80" tv now, where I was leaning to 4K, I am pretty firmly not now. Pricing is one main reason. The 4k/UHD push does have an effect on the pricing down the line. I am able to get a bigger TV for less $$ now than before the 4K/UHD days.
badgerdon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Integrity. Im former military and this is preached. I think you need some good sir.
Ahh, that explains it. Just follow orders and don't ask questions. That's also preached in the military. So if Mr. X writes an article or review with no certified data to back up the claims we should just trust it as fact?

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #273 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Citivas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 180
A lot of the discussion here presumes that the reason one buys a 4K Tv is to get 4K. But as a practical matter, particularly at the larger set sizes, the manufactures are putting their flagship features in their 4K Tv. So if what you want is their best blacks, best sound, best UI/remote features, you need to buy their 4K set.

I'm in the market for a 79+" TV right now, for example (won't settle for 75"). I have definitely considered the non-4K sets, including the Vizio 80" and Sharp 80-90" models. I have the Sharp in our office and I tried out the Vizio at home, so serious time with both. But the PQ on these sets just doesn't match the best Samsung and Sony sets in that size range even when playing 1080P or for that matter SD content. Those Sony and Samsung's have better black levels, better motion handling, better uniformity, better color accuracy, etc. So even if I cared not at all for 4K, on the basis of picture quality I would need to go to 4K to get the best results at that size range.
Citivas is offline  
post #274 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 03:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Ahh, that explains it. Just follow orders and don't ask questions. That's also preached in the military. So if Mr. X writes an article or review with no certified data to back up the claims we should just trust it as fact?
Attacking my service now? Wow.

And not 1 damn link.

Again belittling someone.

You have a very bad pattern in here.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #275 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 04:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
It's not done when you can still go out and buy one. It's a very real question. The Kuro saw no equal for years, and plenty of videophiles regretted not buying one. The same thing happened to the ZT60, VT60 and especially the ST60... and now you see them (even the ST60) selling for more than UHDTVs of the same size.

Anyhow, perhaps at this point next year discussing plamsa would truly be a moot point. But as of today, there's still a choice you can make. I'm certainly not advocating buying an expensive 1080p LCD over a similarly-priced UHD/4K unit. If that's the choice, go with UHD. For LCDs, 1080p is definitely the budget option at this point. So, in my view the 1080p vs. UHD question still boils down to plasma vs. LED, at the screen sizes most people tend to buy.
I agree Mark, which is why I own a VT60. But honestly the only plasma I'd have a passing interest in right now is the F8500 and based on my history with Samsung's customer service I doubt I could be convinced to buy. Anyway, I see nothing available on the market right now that can hold a candle to my VT60 except the aforementioned F8500 and of course the LG OLED-- which has a few too many ? marks and $ signs for me still. I also don't see much in the queue that might challenge that superiority in the immediate future. Everyone knows I'm an advocate for plasma picture quality and was sad to see it go. That being said: I'm just really tired of the plasma vs lcd debate. It always goes the same way: someone brings up some false or grossly exaggerated issue relating to plasma (see: altitude) and then the palsma fans (like me) come to it's rescue and then... pissing match. It never goes anywhere and, honestly, it never will with plasma now discontinued. I've just accepted that the vast majority of flat screen owners just don't know what they're missing... and I'm ok with that.

One thing I will disagree with: I don't think 1080p LCD is quite the 'budget' only option yet. There are some stunning 1080p LCD displays out there and in some cases they can beat their 4k bretheren in more than just price, for example: the Sony 1080p Bravia's have class leading low input lag that the 4k sets can't match yet. I still think 1080p is the smart choice with much of the 4k 'spec' yet to be finalized and the absolute dirth of available content. Just my two cents.

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #276 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 04:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Liked: 1538
UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I agree Mark, which is why I own a VT60. But honestly the only plasma I'd have a passing interest in right now is the F8500 and based on my history with Samsung's customer service I doubt I could be convinced to buy. Anyway, I see nothing available on the market right now that can hold a candle to my VT60 except the aforementioned F8500 and of course the LG OLED-- which has a few too many ? marks and $ signs for me still. I also don't see much in the queue that might challenge that superiority in the immediate future. Everyone knows I'm an advocate for plasma picture quality and was sad to see it go. That being said: I'm just really tired of the plasma vs lcd debate. It always goes the same way: someone brings up some false or grossly exaggerated issue relating to plasma (see: altitude) and then the palsma fans (like me) come to it's rescue and then... pissing match. It never goes anywhere and, honestly, it never will with plasma now discontinued. I've just accepted that the vast majority of flat screen owners just don't know what they're missing... and I'm ok with that.

One thing I will disagree with: I don't think 1080p LCD is quite the 'budget' only option yet. There are some stunning 1080p LCD displays out there and in some cases they can beat their 4k bretheren in more than just price, for example: the Sony 1080p Bravia's have class leading low input lag that the 4k sets can't match yet. I still think 1080p is the smart choice with much of the 4k 'spec' yet to be finalized and the absolute dirth of available content. Just my two cents.

It's probably the exception to the rule though. But you and I both know the majority of people don't care about input lag, or even know what it is. TV manufacturers have never taken gaming seriously, the input lag difference isn't inherent to 4K, it's just not something they deem worth spending the time and R&D on. (And they're probably right to do so.)

Outside of gamers, I think even today's 4K sets are worth serious consideration because there's few if any drawbacks (other than a lighter wallet) to having those extra pixels.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #277 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by UofAZ1 View Post
I've read of people who can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p at a distance of 8 feet or further away (standard seating distance). I've seen a couple 4k displays and yes they are quite spectacular but I'll wait till there is more 4k content and prices drop to the Everyman type budget.
With 55 inch Seiki being in the $500 range and Samsung of similar size in the $2000 range I don't think they are far off from the everyman type budget...

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #278 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
It's probably the exception to the rule though. But you and I both know the majority of people don't care about input lag, or even know what it is. TV manufacturers have never taken gaming seriously, the input lag difference isn't inherent to 4K, it's just not something they deem worth spending the time and R&D on. (And they're probably right to do so.)

Outside of gamers, I think even today's 4K sets are worth serious consideration because there's few if any drawbacks (other than a lighter wallet) to having those extra pixels.
Not saying they aren't worth consideration-- just throwing some sanity on the discussion. 4k is a resolution. Just a resolution. Only a resolution. 4k does not provide better black levels, better contrast, better uniformity, wider viewing angles or more color accuracy or saturation-- just more pixels. The example I was using with input lag was just one example I had witnessed with the sony models. There is a blanket statement being thrown around here that "4k better than 1080p because reasons" and I was trying to use that as an example that you really need to look and treat each model of tv on it's own because 4k does not guarantee a good picture or that you'll get what you want.

Besides that I could care less what anyone here buys because I own a VT60... Which just makes me better... Kidding.
sage11x is offline  
post #279 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerfan33 View Post
HDR will take a 10 bit panel to implement. Nothing a Smart Evolution box can do to help with that.
Samsung HU8500, HU8550, HU8700 and HU9000 all them uses a 10-bit panel.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #280 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Liked: 1538
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Not saying they aren't worth consideration-- just throwing some sanity on the discussion. 4k is a resolution. Just a resolution. Only a resolution. 4k does not provide better black levels, better contrast, better uniformity, wider viewing angles or more color accuracy or saturation-- just more pixels. The example I was using with input lag was just one example I had witnessed with the sony models. There is a blanket statement being thrown around here that "4k better than 1080p because reasons" and I was trying to use that as an example that you really need to look and treat each model of tv on it's own because 4k does not guarantee a good picture or that you'll get what you want.



Besides that I could care less what anyone here buys because I own a VT60... Which just makes me better... Kidding.

True, but outside of those cheapo seiki monitors, can you point to any 4K LCDs that aren't competitive or superior than other 1080p LCDs?

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #281 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:39 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,903
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2163 Post(s)
Liked: 3504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post
Samsung HU8500, HU8550, HU8700 and HU9000 all them uses a 10-bit panel.
Where did you find that info about the Samsungs being 10 bit panels? I've read that they are 8-bit but I can't find anything definitive.

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 07-23-2014 at 05:42 PM.
imagic is offline  
post #282 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Citivas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 298 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Where did you find that info about the Samsungs being 10 bit panels? I've read that they are 8-bit but I can't find anything definitive.
I had the same question. On the Samsung topics the answer to this are all over the board. It didn't seem as settled as the post implied.

Please link to where to put sot bed the question that they are all 10-bit panels. Thanks.
Citivas is offline  
post #283 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 14
About 10-bit panel:
Samsung Panel Version Thread


[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #284 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 06:03 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,903
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2163 Post(s)
Liked: 3504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post
About 10-bit panel:
Samsung Panel Version Thread


Just to be clear, where does it say—definitively—that Samsung uses 10 bit panels in all those TVs you listed earlier?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post
Samsung HU8500, HU8550, HU8700 and HU9000 all them uses a 10-bit panel.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #285 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 06:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Just to be clear, where does it say—definitively—that Samsung uses 10 bit panels in all those TVs you listed earlier?
The replacement panel on the samsung website is a 10bit.

The panel thread has tore it down again And again and come to the conclusion at min the hu9000 is a 10 bit panel. They believe many other samsung panels are this year.

I can't say I'm either side of that right now. Clearly I'm hoping for the best. I just don't get into it until someone is brave enough to open one.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #286 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 06:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Just to be clear, where does it say—definitively—that Samsung uses 10 bit panels in all those TVs you listed earlier?
If don't it wouldn't make sense to support RGB, YCbCr 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 (besides 4:2:0 of course).

Besides this also proof they are using a full HDMI v2.0 chipset too. If you want to be 100% certain, you'll need to open the TV and post the photos from panel label here.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	tv.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	204.4 KB
ID:	177146  

[]s,
Fernando

Last edited by Gradius2; 07-23-2014 at 06:50 PM.
Gradius2 is offline  
post #287 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 06:52 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,903
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2163 Post(s)
Liked: 3504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post
If don't it wouldn't make sense to support YCbCr 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 (besides 4:2:0 of course).

Besides this also proof they are using a full HDMI v2.0 chipset too. If you want to be 100% certain, you'll need to open the TV and post the photos from panel label here.
That's simply not true, 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 have to do with chroma compression, not bit depth. There is no such thing as "full HDMI 2.0" but for the sake of argument the AX800U I have in my studio accepts 8-bit 4:4:4 2160/60p input via DisplayPort, and 4:4:4 2160/30p via HDMI 2.0.

Mark Henninger
imagic is offline  
post #288 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
True, but outside of those cheapo seiki monitors, can you point to any 4K LCDs that aren't competitive or superior than other 1080p LCDs?
Well considering I haven't shopped outside the sony models last year the only other thing I could point to is the fairly scathing review of the lg 4k that was posted last month: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/49ub850v-201406033786.htm

"The LG 49UB850V is not only the worst 4K TV we’ve tested, it’s also one of the worst-performing televisions we’ve reviewed to date in terms of image quality. Its subpar picture performance is made all the more difficult to accept by the display’s retail price of £1500. Sure, it’s 4K (even that’s not strictly true considering the significant drop in resolution with movement), but there exist many other critical elements of picture quality including contrast ratio, shadow detail and motion handling, and the UB850 flunked the majority of them."

LG makes some decent TVs but apparently their 4k isn't one of them. I'm not trying to soapbox here I'm just trying to point out that 4k is just like led LCD and plasma-- good ones and bad ones. There is an awful lot of 'definitives' being thrown out on this thread and I'm just trying to counterbalance the hysterics a little.
sage11x is offline  
post #289 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 07:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Not saying they aren't worth consideration-- just throwing some sanity on the discussion. 4k is a resolution. Just a resolution. Only a resolution. 4k does not provide better black levels, better contrast, better uniformity, wider viewing angles or more color accuracy or saturation-- just more pixels. The example I was using with input lag was just one example I had witnessed with the sony models. There is a blanket statement being thrown around here that "4k better than 1080p because reasons" and I was trying to use that as an example that you really need to look and treat each model of tv on it's own because 4k does not guarantee a good picture or that you'll get what you want.

Besides that I could care less what anyone here buys because I own a VT60... Which just makes me better... Kidding.
Sorry so I did google this and found this for you.

The Ultra HD revolution isn't just about quadrupling resolution, it also supports faster frame rates, insane contrast dynamics and extended colours. According to research by the EBU and the BBC, viewers are equally receptive to high native frame rates (up to 100Hz), because images are perceived to be more naturalistic and detailed.
And unlike the resolution boost, high frame rate (HFR) UHD is appreciable from a variety of viewing distances and on different screen sizes. Indeed, it's HFR which will ultimately make 4K UHD the smart choice on screens smaller than 50-inches.

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...k-tv-1194486/1

Reason #4 : 4K can recreate the look of 35mm film digitally

Reason #10 : 4K does wonders for 3D and is essential for ‘glasses-free’


Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...iZrAtqHm8Dg.99

Just a couple I found.

3d is a huge jump in quality on 4k sets. I love that.
marcuslaw and Hisma like this.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #290 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Sorry so I did google this and found this for you.

The Ultra HD revolution isn't just about quadrupling resolution, it also supports faster frame rates, insane contrast dynamics and extended colours. According to research by the EBU and the BBC, viewers are equally receptive to high native frame rates (up to 100Hz), because images are perceived to be more naturalistic and detailed.
And unlike the resolution boost, high frame rate (HFR) UHD is appreciable from a variety of viewing distances and on different screen sizes. Indeed, it's HFR which will ultimately make 4K UHD the smart choice on screens smaller than 50-inches.

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...k-tv-1194486/1

Reason #4 : 4K can recreate the look of 35mm film digitally

Reason #10 : 4K does wonders for 3D and is essential for ‘glasses-free’


Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...iZrAtqHm8Dg.99

Just a couple I found.

3d is a huge jump in quality on 4k sets. I love that.
Thanks Mr. orange, I don't know what we'd do without you and your amazing google machine. Problem is: this very topic was discussed on the home page here and also in a thread I myself started over in flat panel tech and if you had actually stopped to read any of the links you just spewed out there you would realize that the EBU paper was actually an indictment of the CE industry and their strict focus on resolution with none of the other gains mentioned in the brief.

Let me boil this down for you: your 4k that you just bought may never do any of that other **** they were talking about.
xkalibur likes this.
sage11x is offline  
post #291 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
That's simply not true, 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 have to do with chroma compression, not bit depth. There is no such thing as "full HDMI 2.0" but for the sake of argument the AX800U I have in my studio accepts 8-bit 4:4:4 2160/60p input via DisplayPort, and 4:4:4 2160/30p via HDMI 2.0.
That's correct, bit depth and chroma sub sampling not related. You can have 4:2:0 at 10 bits and 4:4:4 at 8 bits.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #292 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 07:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Liked: 1538
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Well considering I haven't shopped outside the sony models last year the only other thing I could point to is the fairly scathing review of the lg 4k that was posted last month: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/49ub8...1406033786.htm

"The LG 49UB850V is not only the worst 4K TV we’ve tested, it’s also one of the worst-performing televisions we’ve reviewed to date in terms of image quality. Its subpar picture performance is made all the more difficult to accept by the display’s retail price of £1500. Sure, it’s 4K (even that’s not strictly true considering the significant drop in resolution with movement), but there exist many other critical elements of picture quality including contrast ratio, shadow detail and motion handling, and the UB850 flunked the majority of them."

LG makes some decent TVs but apparently their 4k isn't one of them. I'm not trying to soapbox here I'm just trying to point out that 4k is just like led LCD and plasma-- good ones and bad ones. There is an awful lot of 'definitives' being thrown out on this thread and I'm just trying to counterbalance the hysterics a little.
Yikes.

Well, I'm just going by casual reading of reviews. Most 4K sets that I've seen are flagships that are overall pretty good performers (for LCDs.) But just like you, I'm simply not interested in a LCD TV, I'll keep my plasma, thanks.

I'm real, real close to buying a 4K monitor though, and it's LCD or nothing when it comes to monitors. Just waiting for a reasonably price variable refresh rate model to hit the market.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #293 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Thanks Mr. orange, I don't know what we'd do without you and your amazing google machine. Problem is: this very topic was discussed on the home page here and also in a thread I myself started over in flat panel tech and if you had actually stopped to read any of the links you just spewed out there you would realize that the EBU paper was actually an indictment of the CE industry and their strict focus on resolution with none of the other gains mentioned in the brief.

Let me boil this down for you: your 4k that you just bought may never do any of that other **** they were talking about.
But why do I care? I told you everything I've ever seen looks better on the tv. So it's the best set I've ever owned. How is that a loss?

I didn't know about ce. I admit that. But I haven't looked into it more either so I'm blindly giving you that. You don't sound wrong p.

But my 4k set already looks better. You want the answers you seek. Don't believe one owner. Go ask the owners. Plenty of plasma owners kuro and vt in there. They are not going back.

That resolution matters. You can't make us feel bad for buying our 4k sets. The last thing we feel is buyers remorse. Well samsung owners at least. I won't speak for the sony forum.

These still count right?

Reason #4 : 4K can recreate the look of 35mm film digitally

Reason #10 : 4K does wonders for 3D and is essential for ‘glasses-free’
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #294 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 08:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
Yikes.

Well, I'm just going by casual reading of reviews. Most 4K sets that I've seen are flagships that are overall pretty good performers (for LCDs.) But just like you, I'm simply not interested in a LCD TV, I'll keep my plasma, thanks.

I'm real, real close to buying a 4K monitor though, and it's LCD or nothing when it comes to monitors. Just waiting for a reasonably price variable refresh rate model to hit the market.
Exactly. I don't have a downer on LCD it's just I've never enjoyed the 'look' of large screen LCD for tv/movies. I think this really comes down to how LCD produces motion vs plasma and, of course, vs DLP-- which is another fantastic 'outmoded' tech! Btw, in this house we have HD CRT tube, HD CRT rear projection, DLP rear projection, plasma and LCD. We're literally representing all bias over here! Lol!

4k makes perfect sense to me as a monitor solution. But until there is a viable source for 4k content (specifically Hollywood movies) that ISN'T Netflix or YouTube, I'm less than enthusiastic about needing a 4k set in my living room. If it's a feature on the tv I wanted to buy anyway than ok but right now 4k is pretty far down the list of things I'd need in a big screen.
sage11x is offline  
post #295 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 08:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
That's simply not true, 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 have to do with chroma compression, not bit depth. There is no such thing as "full HDMI 2.0" but for the sake of argument the AX800U I have in my studio accepts 8-bit 4:4:4 2160/60p input via DisplayPort, and 4:4:4 2160/30p via HDMI 2.0.
"Full" was a way to say... I actually means "compliant with HDMI 2.0 standard".

The only way then is to open the TV and check the panel.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #296 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 10:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Souvlaki Space Station
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Again Sony.com and Samsung.com is not hard to find.

Search for the top of the line (top tier) for each. Those sets have the best upscaling for those companys.

What is going on here. Whats the disconnect?
This is little more than a cop-out...don't let your Samsung bias get to your head.

While I've never seen an AX800 in-person, spec-wise it is on-par with the Sony X900B and Samsung HU9000. HDTVTest seems to like it and I consider them to be a credible source. How exactly is it second tier aside from your made-up comment about upscaling?

Again spec-wise, it would seem that all three sets (AX800, X900B, HU9000) are decidedly "second tier" when compared to the AX900, X950B, and S9.

ht Panasonic 60" ZT60, Monitor Audio: Silver RX6, RX Centre, RX1; Martinlogan Dynamo 700, Marantz SR5006, PS3, Oppo BDP-103D, Panamax M-5100PM
2ch Sony 32" W650A, Sonus faber Toy Monitor, REL T3, Marantz PM8004, Sony BDP-S1000ES, JVC T-X3 tuner, Apple TV, Peachtree Audio DAC•iT, Panamax MR4300
pc Monitor Audio Radius 90HD, Audioengine D1, FiiO A1
+ Sony 65" XBRX850B, Sony BDP-S5100
fatuglyguy is offline  
post #297 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 10:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
This is little more than a cop-out...don't let your Samsung bias get to your head.

While I've never seen an AX800 in-person, spec-wise it is on-par with the Sony X900B and Samsung HU9000. HDTVTest seems to like it and I consider them to be a credible source. How exactly is it second tier aside from your made-up comment about upscaling?

Again spec-wise, it would seem that all three sets (AX800, X900B, HU9000) are decidedly "second tier" when compared to the AX900, X950B, and S9.
The s9 is 2013. Still nice. I think the replacment is the 85hu8550.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #298 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Souvlaki Space Station
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 168
The S9 has been carried over into 2014 and is the only model in Samsung's lineup that features full-array local dimming, opposed to the edge-light system used in the 85" HU8550. Not really comparable. They're also using the S9 model number for the new curved 105" 21:9 panel.

ht Panasonic 60" ZT60, Monitor Audio: Silver RX6, RX Centre, RX1; Martinlogan Dynamo 700, Marantz SR5006, PS3, Oppo BDP-103D, Panamax M-5100PM
2ch Sony 32" W650A, Sonus faber Toy Monitor, REL T3, Marantz PM8004, Sony BDP-S1000ES, JVC T-X3 tuner, Apple TV, Peachtree Audio DAC•iT, Panamax MR4300
pc Monitor Audio Radius 90HD, Audioengine D1, FiiO A1
+ Sony 65" XBRX850B, Sony BDP-S5100
fatuglyguy is offline  
post #299 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 10:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,259
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
The S9 has been carried over into 2014 and is the only model in Samsung's lineup that features full-array local dimming, opposed to the edge-light system used in the 85" HU8550. Not really comparable. They're also using the S9 model number for the new curved 105" 21:9 panel.
Please check the hu9000 owners forum. Apparently hdguru has confirmed a fully backlit system.

The curved 105 at 120k makes no sense. I would take that 77 lg curved oled for 20k.

If I had that kind of money.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #300 of 2169 Old 07-23-2014, 10:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Souvlaki Space Station
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Doubt it. Take a look here:

Samsung 85HU8550 is FALD according to HD Guru. Can that be True?

Doesn't seem likely that they'd produce a larger version of their non-flagship 4K set with a more advanced backlighting and then slap an MSRP of just $10K on it. Most likely edge-lit, but manufacturers nowadays have such convoluted marketing terminology that it's hard for anybody to tell what's what.

ht Panasonic 60" ZT60, Monitor Audio: Silver RX6, RX Centre, RX1; Martinlogan Dynamo 700, Marantz SR5006, PS3, Oppo BDP-103D, Panamax M-5100PM
2ch Sony 32" W650A, Sonus faber Toy Monitor, REL T3, Marantz PM8004, Sony BDP-S1000ES, JVC T-X3 tuner, Apple TV, Peachtree Audio DAC•iT, Panamax MR4300
pc Monitor Audio Radius 90HD, Audioengine D1, FiiO A1
+ Sony 65" XBRX850B, Sony BDP-S5100
fatuglyguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off