UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 537Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 05:45 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,324
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1683 Post(s)
Liked: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
Thanks, I'll look into it. Any specific model? I saw one mention of FA backlights on the Vizio website, but a review linked mentioned FALD is coming in a refresh. These appear to be 1080p, so I assume you're recommending skipping the 4K sets at this time, for my scenario?
yes the Vizio M is a FALD 1080p set. If the goal is to get great image quality for the money within the parameters you set out, that's would be the place I'd start. Just make sure it's a a 2014 M series, at the size you think is ideal. The 2013 models are edgelit.
Kalani likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 826 Post(s)
Liked: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
So after reading through 18 pages of schoolyard arguments, I'm hoping against hope that perhaps, in a post or two here and there, this thread can actually live up to it's title and help me out: "UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy"

My father in law is in the market to buy a new TV in the next 30 days. His space supports 55-60" max. Bigger sets would make it a lot easier to decide, but we play the cards we're dealt.

The room is very bright with lots of windows. The seating position is 12-15' away from the screen. The room is also open on one side to the kitchen, so the screen is often seen from a much farther distance, and an oblique viewing angle. (a good extending wall mount will help with that, but they won't always be taking the time to pull it out, of course)

He LOVES 4K. The in-store demos have him convinced that's what he wants (yeah, I know). But he's not sure. He was considering the 1080p Samsung 8000, in terms of budget, so the best of the best 4k sets are probably out, even though he can go a little higher. The question is, should he bother? Or should I recommend he buy 1080p for now and wait a few more years to splurge?

I'm a plasma guy, and the excellent viewing angle Plasma offers would help, but unfortunately, I reluctantly have to agree that the room is bright enough that it's not a great candidate for plasma. So we really are looking at 1080p LCD vs 4k LCD. Further, at the relatively smaller size, the 4k advantage is clearly reduced, so again, not an easy call.

I'm curious what guidance y'all can offer on this score.
if the room is too bright for the f8500, then it doesn't really matter, just get him the cheapest tv with a good screen filter on it. won't be able to appreciate any of the benefits of a good tv in a super bright room like that anyway.


ok, now that I've had my fun... seriously consider the f8500. it's nearly LED bright(I find it too bright to watch comfortably and had to turn on the eco mode) and it's got one of the best screen filters on the market. it's an amazingly versatile display that should work in most scenarios. super bright reflections right behind the viewer(assuming you are sitting on axis) are still an issue, but they are even more of an issue on the lcd's I own, so it would take a very special tv to solve that anyway. light from the sides or overhead are not a problem. it's not 'a plasma' it's 'an f8500'. seriously, you need to consider it separately as it's not typical(sometimes in a bad way) of other plasmas.


4k, imo, is too immature, and only pretends to offer you future-proofing. whatever tv you buy today, WILL be lacking important features found on even the basic 4k models in 2yrs.



so in TODAY's market, the f8500 is really the only tv I'd recommend. I'd say plan B is to buy a cheap 1080P LCD with the intention of replacing it in a year or two with the 4k one once the dust has settled a bit and you have more options. if you can get a tv for 800bux or less today, I'm pretty sure 4k TV's will have gone down that much in a couple years anyway. I normally say that the best value is to buy the best TV you can and use it longer, but in this case I just don't see a 4k tv you buy today being much more future proof than a 1080p tv. the first HD tv we bought didn't have hdmi inputs, waiting one more year would have made a big difference for us that time. I don't want to make that mistake again
Kalani and losservatore like this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One

Last edited by fierce_gt; 07-27-2014 at 05:56 PM.
fierce_gt is offline  
post #543 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Check out the Vizio M series.
I agree and don't agree with Mark in this recommendation. I say check out the Vizio M if you plan on getting a calibration. Otherwise I would recommend the Sony 60" W630.

The reason I say this is the Vizio M has a good reputation post-calibration but it pretty awful out of the box. The Sony, on the other hand, has a superb out of the box picture. Of course it will still greatly benefit from a calibration but it's not a necessity as much as the M.

The sony is affordable, has a very uniform picture due to it's direct backlighting and, being a sony, is likely to a bit more reliable. Echoing Fierce, I really wouldn't spend a bundle on a tv in a bright room-- you'll likely not see the advantages over a less expensive model.
sage11x is offline  
post #544 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 06:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
4k, imo, is too immature, and only pretends to offer you future-proofing. whatever tv you buy today, WILL be lacking important features found on even the basic 4k models in 2yrs.

So in TODAY's market, the F8500 is really the only tv I'd recommend. I'd say plan B is to buy a cheap 1080P LCD with the intention of replacing it in a year or two with the 4k one once the dust has settled a bit and you have more options..... I normally say that the best value is to buy the best TV you can and use it longer, but in this case I just don't see a 4k tv you buy today being much more future proof than a 1080p tv. the first HD tv we bought didn't have hdmi inputs, waiting one more year would have made a big difference for us that time. I don't want to make that mistake again

This post could assist a lot on the topic of this thread. Well said.

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #545 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 06:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I agree and don't agree with Mark in this recommendation. I say check out the Vizio M if you plan on getting a calibration. Otherwise I would recommend the Sony 60" W630.

The reason I say this is the Vizio M has a good reputation post-calibration but it pretty awful out of the box. The Sony, on the other hand, has a superb out of the box picture. Of course it will still greatly benefit from a calibration but it's not a necessity as much as the M.

The sony is affordable, has a very uniform picture due to it's direct backlighting and, being a sony, is likely to a bit more reliable. Echoing Fierce, I really wouldn't spend a bundle on a tv in a bright room-- you'll likely not see the advantages over a less expensive model.
imagic and fierce_gt, thank you both for your recommendations. And thank you, Sage, for yours. I'll definitely look into the Sony, along with the Vizio M. I'll do some more reading and consideration re the f8500, but I think plasma is going to be a tough sell for my father in law, especially given the high price compared to 4K, since 4K is the ultimate goal for him, at least in the long run. So a fairly pricey 1080p set is probably not in the cards.

I'm leaning towards recommending an inexpensive (but not cheap) 1080p LCD at this time, along the lines of the Vizio M and Sony models mentioned, with an eye towards upgrading to 4k in a year or three, when the market and features have matured a little bit. It makes the most sense to me, given the current state of flux. I don't know how easy it will be to sell, because he likes his toys (admittedly I can relate), but we'll see how it goes. The Vizio name will be an especially tough sell, but who knows, maybe my powers of persuasion will prevail, else perhaps the Sony will be what we're looking for. (he's a bit of a name snob (as am I, admittedly), but Sony has plenty of cachet)

Thank you all, for your insights! I have some more research to do... (and I remain open to other recommendations, while I read up)
Kalani is offline  
post #546 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 757 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I think he should get a 60" plasma. I have one in a room with lots of windows, and the brightness really isn't a problem. I also have a 50" 4k LED, which I like, but it's weakest point is that it looks bad from an oblique angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
imagic and fierce_gt, thank you both for your recommendations. And thank you, Sage, for yours. I'll definitely look into the Sony, along with the Vizio M. I'll do some more reading and consideration re the f8500, but I think plasma is going to be a tough sell for my father in law, especially given the high price compared to 4K, since 4K is the ultimate goal for him, at least in the long run. So a fairly pricey 1080p set is probably not in the cards.

I'm leaning towards recommending an inexpensive (but not cheap) 1080p LCD at this time, along the lines of the Vizio M and Sony models mentioned, with an eye towards upgrading to 4k in a year or three, when the market and features have matured a little bit. It makes the most sense to me, given the current state of flux. I don't know how easy it will be to sell, because he likes his toys (admittedly I can relate), but we'll see how it goes. The Vizio name will be an especially tough sell, but who knows, maybe my powers of persuasion will prevail, else perhaps the Sony will be what we're looking for. (he's a bit of a name snob (as am I, admittedly), but Sony has plenty of cachet)

Thank you all, for your insights! I have some more research to do... (and I remain open to other recommendations, while I read up)
Get him a samsung hu8550. It will still compatible in 1 to 3 years with all 4k content. And it accepts a evo kit for upgrade hdmi ports etc.

You sound like he wants a 4k. Get him one.

How will buying two tv be better?

The evo kit will upgrade the brains of the tv for 2 to 3 years.

Its the same price as the plasmas your considering. He get what he wants.

You think the 4k tv will be outdated in 2 to 3 years? Imagine a 1080p set in 2 to 3 years.

And the samsung does all the streaming 4k. All other content better so he can enjoy an enhanced picture today.

4k is the next step. Not 1080p. So the thinking its buying an outdated tv to buy 4k is backwards.

Its outdated buying a 1080p tv. The 4k is also very affordable. If you compare to plasma etc.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #547 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 06:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dr.Shankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
Thanks, I'll look into it. Any specific model? I saw one mention of FA backlights on the Vizio website, but a review linked mentioned FALD is coming in a refresh, so I'm not sure which to look at. EDIT: I'm guessing the M602i-B3 is what you recommend?

Also, these appear to be 1080p, so I assume you're recommending skipping the 4K sets at this time, for my scenario?
Most of the 2014 M-series can be found at Best buy or warehouse stores such as Costco and Sam's club. I have seen the 49", 60" and 65" personally and have heard 70" models are showing up in the wild. All 2014 models offer some zone dimming option from 6-32 zones,but all lack 3D. That will be your tell,tell sign on the retail packaging. I know you are looking for recommendations,so if hopes and rumors are trues we will see Vizio's first foray into 4k with the P-series in the next couple months. You will get all current specs needed for delivery of streaming 4k,4k@60hz and 2x the dimming zones with 64 zones.
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #548 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Get him a samsung hu8550. It will still compatible in 1 to 3 years with all 4k content. And it accepts a evo kit for upgrade hdmi ports etc.

You sound like he wants a 4k. Get him one.

How will buying two tv be better?

The evo kit will upgrade the brains of the tv for 2 to 3 years.

Its the same price as the plasmas your considering. He get what he wants.

You think the 4k tv will be outdated in 2 to 3 years? Imagine a 1080p set in 2 to 3 years.

And the samsung does all the streaming 4k. All other content better so he can enjoy an enhanced picture today.

4k is the next step. Not 1080p. So the thinking its buying an outdated tv to buy 4k is backwards.

Its outdated buying a 1080p tv. The 4k is also very affordable. If you compare to plasma etc.
I think you misunderstood my post. For one thing, I don't think (as I said from the start) that plasmas are seriously in the running.

A Samsung HU8550 won't be "outdated" in 2-3 years, but it WILL be considerably outclassed by TVs that have had an extra couple of years of development, and which will offer that much newer features (and may offer lower prices, too). It's a great set, and the one I'll likely recommend if he insists on 4K, all evidence (including your own admission that 4K won't help him at the size and distances involved) to the contrary.

But spending $1200 or less on an intermediary 1080p set today, which can likely be sold for half of it's original purchase price in 2-3 years, means he gets a very nice TV today, which meets today's needs very nicely, for a net cost of $600 (he can afford the hit) (you can also look at this as $200-300 per year), and in 2-3 years he can go ahead and buy a significantly more advanced 4K set, with the benefit of more settled standards and possibly lower prices... and quite probably better features than are available today.
bass excavator likes this.
Kalani is offline  
post #549 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 07:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 757 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
I think you misunderstood my post. For one thing, I don't think (as I said from the start) that plasmas are seriously in the running.

A Samsung HU8550 won't be "outdated" in 2-3 years, but it WILL be considerably outclassed by TVs that have had an extra couple of years of development, and which will offer that much newer features (and may offer lower prices, too). It's a great set, and the one I'll likely recommend if he insists on 4K, all evidence (including your own admission that 4K won't help him at the size and distances involved) to the contrary.

But spending $1200 or less on an intermediary 1080p set today, which can likely be sold for half of it's original purchase price in 2-3 years, means he gets a very nice TV today, which meets today's needs very nicely, for a net cost of $600 (he can afford the hit) (you can also look at this as $200-300 per year), and in 2-3 years he can go ahead and buy a significantly more advanced 4K set, with the benefit of more settled standards and possibly lower prices... and quite probably better features than are available today.
I was thinking move the current 4k set to the room. Oled 4k set when viable.

1200 range I agree just hold for the Vizio 4k series to start coming out. There wont be any reason to buy a cheap 1080p set over a comparable 4k set.

The picture for upscaling is not the same but it wont hurt your viewing.

And if you bought a samsung the only benefit of waiting really would be 10 bit panels. The evo kit removes the other issues.

And the 8bit will still work. It is to be seen how much difference the updated 4k tvs will be.

I wouldnt think it can double. It wont be 8k. The 10bit panel will allow for better color. Higher refresh rates. Current sets are all 120hz.

The vizio will be an interesting choice if you end up with a chance for both and have to truly pick the Vizio M series or the Vizio P series. Then you will truly understand the reasoning. Its just got to be the right price.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-27-2014 at 07:41 PM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #550 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 757 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Here a site that tells you the truth about the set. Good and bad. Things this site and members say these 4k sets dont do. Please read.
http://www.avforums.com/review/samsu...v-review.10332

The 55 is about 2k at online sources. Usually cleveland plasma is comparable or better. You should consider this one.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #551 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 08:40 PM
Member
 
IanR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Mark, I don't recall (it's been 19 pages over multiple days so pls cut me some slack) if there has been any comment so far relative to the Sony 4k FP 500/600/1100 and whether it has many of the same limitations (motion, ghosting; SOE, etc) that the UHD FALD sets have. My understanding is that the FALD technology is a way to solve some of the problems inherent in LED backlit LCD displays and I presume that none of it is applicable to the Sony FP .. but I also believe that the technology in the projector is still fundamentally LCD chip based so I presume it has some of the same motion issues that LCD tv panels do. Also, there has been talk in this thread that off-axis viewing is still an issue with some of the UHD FALD LCD tv sets .. but is it also an issue with the Sony projector? Also, how do the black levels compare to the best of the FALD sets and to the 8500 plasma?

And thanks for your earlier comment (many pages back) about UHD demo's being primarily 'slide shows' where the content displays well .. but not so much once there is significant motion. This is a comparison that I've never thought of and which I'll look for in the future. I have been trying to review UHD demo's with a critical eye .. even from 8 ft back and my personal observation is that I was generally blown away .. yet I was trying to square that with the comments that the sets still have 8 bit panels; don't have HDR; generally don't have wider color ranges; etc .. so what the heck is it that I'm seeing that I'm so impressed with? I still don't know .. but your suggestion is that the store demo's are somewhat contrived and I should be looking for demo's with motion to understand how the set will perform in the real world with sports and other motion activities. I did note that an earlier poster said that watching the World Cup was amazing so I presume that would have been a good test.
IanR is offline  
post #552 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 10:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Without frame interpolation all UHD LCDs are going to stop being UHD (actually, most all will stop being HD) once there is a lot of activity on the screen. This is just a limitation of the LCD panel itself. If you notice, most every UHD demo you see in store focuses on long shots of pretty scenery, stationary shots of intricate subjects or those hyper-slo-mo shots of things in motion. What you don't see is heavy action or explosions-- you're never going to see cuts from transformers or avengers in those demos. Not to say the panels can't display fast action but the benefits of 4k lessen in those scenes.
sage11x is offline  
post #553 of 1786 Old 07-27-2014, 11:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 704
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 109
in general i agree with sage11x.

the problem is frame interpolation doesn't do a good job on motion clearness it reduce judder in 23p source but it is still unsharp in motion.

things like BFI (yeah i know it is called interpolation too) does increase motion clearness up to plasma/crt level by adding a problem from plasmas/crt, flicker.
sonys impulse mode does in awesome job too.

on top of this things like this make the screen dim.
not sure how they are going to get HDR and clearmotion with LCD/OLED...

the problem with motion blur is people can life with it it doesn't look totally wrong to our eyes like a judder does. so most people doesn't even know there displays have terrible motion clearness even with frame interpolation and all of it artifacts. but if you show them a test like testufo.com they instantly see the difference they rarely miss it in the first place.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #554 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dr.Shankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Without frame interpolation all UHD LCDs are going to stop being UHD (actually, most all will stop being HD) once there is a lot of activity on the screen. This is just a limitation of the LCD panel itself. If you notice, most every UHD demo you see in store focuses on long shots of pretty scenery, stationary shots of intricate subjects or those hyper-slo-mo shots of things in motion. What you don't see is heavy action or explosions-- you're never going to see cuts from transformers or avengers in those demos. Not to say the panels can't display fast action but the benefits of 4k lessen in those scenes.
Agreed,look at most reviews that cover motion resolution and you'll see they show a "moving" resolution of around 300-400 lines.
While Samsung's AMP can achieve 1080 lines without SOE and LED clear motion as high as 1200 lines (with considerable dimming).
While image is sharper with the addition of the added pixels,but we are not getting anywhere near the advertised 4k.
The average plasma can produce in general a minimum of 600-700 lines,but the higher tiered models can do a minimum of about 900 lines. Plasma still uses frame insertion to achieve this,but its far less obtrusive.
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #555 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,564
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1494
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
in general i agree with sage11x.

the problem is frame interpolation doesn't do a good job on motion clearness it reduce judder in 23p source but it is still unsharp in motion.

things like BFI (yeah i know it is called interpolation too) does increase motion clearness up to plasma/crt level by adding a problem from plasmas/crt, flicker.
sonys impulse mode does in awesome job too.

on top of this things like this make the screen dim.
not sure how they are going to get HDR and clearmotion with LCD/OLED...

the problem with motion blur is people can life with it it doesn't look totally wrong to our eyes like a judder does. so most people doesn't even know there displays have terrible motion clearness even with frame interpolation and all of it artifacts. but if you show them a test like testufo.com they instantly see the difference they rarely miss it in the first place.
Interestingly, what we see on TV in general, is static or nearly static in nature nearly 95% of the time. So you will get full UHD resolution in the ballpark of 95% of the time. Motion blur is actually more 'normal' to the eye and something we seek when shooting video.

You can use high shutter speeds when shooting video, and get razor sharp motion on a plasma and some LEDs. But that very sharp motion looks unnatural and is the reason that most videographers shoot at 1/60th of a second to provide a more natural motion blur.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #556 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 08:43 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,324
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1683 Post(s)
Liked: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Interestingly, what we see on TV in general, is static or nearly static in nature nearly 95% of the time. So you will get full UHD resolution in the ballpark of 95% of the time. Motion blur is actually more 'normal' to the eye and something we seek when shooting video.

You can use high shutter speeds when shooting video, and get razor sharp motion on a plasma and some LEDs. But that very sharp motion looks unnatural and is the reason that most videographers shoot at 1/60th of a second to provide a more natural motion blur.
Only at low frame rates... Sports looks great with high frame rates, as do video games. I question that 95% static figure. I bet today's content has a lot more motion in it.
Joe Bloggs likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
post #557 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
So after reading through 18 pages of schoolyard arguments, I'm hoping against hope that perhaps, in a post or two here and there, this thread can actually live up to it's title and help me out: "UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy"

My father in law is in the market to buy a new TV in the next 30 days. His space supports 55-60" max. Bigger sets would make it a lot easier to decide, but we play the cards we're dealt.

The room is very bright with lots of windows. The seating position is 12-15' away from the screen. The room is also open on one side to the kitchen, so the screen is often seen from a much farther distance, and an oblique viewing angle. (a good extending wall mount will help with that, but they won't always be taking the time to pull it out, of course)

He LOVES 4K. The in-store demos have him convinced that's what he wants (yeah, I know). But he's not sure. He was considering the 1080p Samsung 8000, in terms of budget, so the best of the best 4k sets are probably out, even though he can go a little higher. The question is, should he bother? Or should I recommend he buy 1080p for now and wait a few more years to splurge?

I'm a plasma guy, and the excellent viewing angle Plasma offers would help, but unfortunately, I reluctantly have to agree that the room is bright enough that it's not a great candidate for plasma. So we really are looking at 1080p LCD vs 4k LCD. Further, at the relatively smaller size, the 4k advantage is clearly reduced, so again, not an easy call.

I'm curious what guidance y'all can offer on this score.
All the bickering is moot. 4K is coming whether it is needed or not. Prices for 4K LCD should only be a 20% premium by the the end of the year. If he is looking now I would get one capable of wider color gamut and higher dynamic range, which might have more impact on the picture than the increased resolution at certain sizes. I would recommend the new Sharp 60UD20 or the Vizio P series that should be out by the end of September. If he can afford it, the new 55" 4K OLED from LG should offer the best picture available. Can't remember if they are making a flat one, so he may have to be ok with the gimmick of the curved screens.

Last edited by sytech; 07-28-2014 at 09:42 AM.
sytech is offline  
post #558 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Interestingly, what we see on TV in general, is static or nearly static in nature nearly 95% of the time. So you will get full UHD resolution in the ballpark of 95% of the time. Motion blur is actually more 'normal' to the eye and something we seek when shooting video.

You can use high shutter speeds when shooting video, and get razor sharp motion on a plasma and some LEDs. But that very sharp motion looks unnatural and is the reason that most videographers shoot at 1/60th of a second to provide a more natural motion blur.
When you say "in general" I'm assuming that translates to 'I pulled this statistic straight out of my butt'?

Other than catching up with Breaking Bad on Netflix (just started season 2!) I 'generally' don't watch TV and when I do it's almost always basketball. The rest of the time I'm watching movies or playing video games on my plasma. While I do enjoy the occasional drama or documentary my guilty pleasure is action movies-- I love them. I seriously can't help myself. Even crappy movies like the last GI Joe get a watch. It's awful. While I will agree that even the most intense actioner (that title would have to go to Raid and Raid 2) doesn't have bullets and explosions flying in every scene I would still prefer if my panel didn't fall to pieces (or rely on trickery) when they do.

But that's just me. I understand that a lot of people won't care as much. Of course, to use an over-used analogy, a lot of people drive Camrys and Lexus' while I prefer something that doesn't become an anchor when faced with a twisty road. I prefer the high performance my plasma gives me.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #559 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dr.Shankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
When you say "in general" I'm assuming that translates to 'I pulled this statistic straight out of my butt'?

Other than catching up with Breaking Bad on Netflix (just started season 2!) I 'generally' don't watch TV and when I do it's almost always basketball. The rest of the time I'm watching movies or playing video games on my plasma. While I do enjoy the occasional drama or documentary my guilty pleasure is action movies-- I love them. I seriously can't help myself. Even crappy movies like the last GI Joe get a watch. It's awful. While I will agree that even the most intense actioner (that title would have to go to Raid and Raid 2) doesn't have bullets and explosions flying in every scene I would still prefer if my panel didn't fall to pieces (or rely on trickery) when they do.

But that's just me. I understand that a lot of people won't care as much. Of course, to use an over-used analogy, a lot of people drive Camrys and Lexus' while I prefer something that doesn't become an anchor when faced with a twisty road. I prefer the high performance my plasma gives me.
You had me at GI-JOE!
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #560 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Shankenstein View Post
You had me at GI-JOE!
Little off topic but have you seen the Raid sequels? They are a must watch for any action fan-- seriously, they take violence and make it art. Even for this grizzled action movie vet those two films kept me perched at the edge of my seat. Lol!

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #561 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 10:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 704
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Interestingly, what we see on TV in general, is static or nearly static in nature nearly 95% of the time. So you will get full UHD resolution in the ballpark of 95% of the time. Motion blur is actually more 'normal' to the eye and something we seek when shooting video.

You can use high shutter speeds when shooting video, and get razor sharp motion on a plasma and some LEDs. But that very sharp motion looks unnatural and is the reason that most videographers shoot at 1/60th of a second to provide a more natural motion blur.
you are missing a very huge point.
they create contend with motion blur this is totally normal and a BFI/impulse displays shows this motion blur. a normal LCD just adds tons more of motion blur a top of it. so why should we add even more on top of it? the motion handling of a normal LCD is so bad you can easily get other types of artifacts like a very sharp black line that looks like 3 lines next to each other. a screen that has handle motion perfect adds flicker and no other artifacts and if the screen does this in very very high Hz it's not visible to the human eye so a pure win/win situation.
mightyhuhn is offline  
post #562 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
All the bickering is moot. 4K is coming whether it is needed or not. Prices for 4K LCD should only be a 20% premium by the the end of the year. If he is looking now I would get one capable of wider color gamut and higher dynamic range, which might have more impact on the picture than the increased resolution at certain sizes. I would recommend the new Sharp 60UD20 or the Vizio P series that should be out by the end of September. If he can afford it, the new 55" 4K OLED from LG should offer the best picture available. Can't remember if they are making a flat one, so he may have to be ok with the gimmick of the curved screens.
All the bickering seems directly related to your claim of wider color gamut and higher dynamic range.

Of course 4K is coming. I look forward to owning one, as does he. The question is, is it the best choice for THIS installation TODAY, as opposed to waiting 2-3 years from now.

If the Vizio P series comes out in the next month, this may be a tougher call. But if he does have to buy in the next 30 days, that may be moot.
Kalani is offline  
post #563 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
All the bickering seems directly related to your claim of wider color gamut and higher dynamic range.
What are you trying to say? The "claim" was that if you buy an LCD, you should prefer one with wider color gamut and higher dynamic range. I don't know that I agree with that recommendation, but I don't see any disputable claim involved.

A 4k set wouldn't be expected to have a wider color gamut than a 2k set, because the color gamut depends on what standard was used in the source signal, the software in the TV set, and the phosphors/filters used in the panel. So far as I know, none of these is especially connected with a difference in resolution.

On the other hand, there is a connection between resolution and dynamic range. LCD-LED sets usually have more peak brightness available than is usable for accurate rendering of video in the 709 spec. Supposing we get video conforming to a more advanced spec that allows high peak brightness, like rec. 2020, the next limiting factor is how many levels of brightness can be distinguished. Greater color depth gives more gradations, but so does greater resolution, because the apparent brightness of a given small area of the screen is determined by more pixels.

So it is possible that a 4k set could potentially give a higher dynamic range than a 2k set.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #564 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
What are you trying to say? The "claim" was that if you buy an LCD, you should prefer one with wider color gamut and higher dynamic range. I don't know that I agree with that recommendation, but I don't see any disputable claim involved.

A 4k set wouldn't be expected to have a wider color gamut than a 2k set, because the color gamut depends on what standard was used in the source signal, the software in the TV set, and the phosphors/filters used in the panel. So far as I know, none of these is especially connected with a difference in resolution.

On the other hand, there is a connection between resolution and dynamic range. LCD-LED sets usually have more peak brightness available than is usable for accurate rendering of video in the 709 spec. Supposing we get video conforming to a more advanced spec that allows high peak brightness, like rec. 2020, the next limiting factor is how many levels of brightness can be distinguished. Greater color depth gives more gradations, but so does greater resolution, because the apparent brightness of a given small area of the screen is determined by more pixels.

So it is possible that a 4k set could potentially give a higher dynamic range than a 2k set.
No. LCDs can get brighter but not without raising their baseline black level. This is why a TV like the VT60 has a better measured contrast than even the best LCDs because even though the panasonic can't get nearly as bright it can, however, get much 'darker'. Also, Dolby's proposed HDR uses a special panel that is capable of brightness an order of magnitude greater than what todays LCDs can manage.

Last edited by sage11x; 07-28-2014 at 01:01 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #565 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kalani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
What are you trying to say? The "claim" was that if you buy an LCD, you should prefer one with wider color gamut and higher dynamic range. I don't know that I agree with that recommendation, but I don't see any disputable claim involved.

A 4k set wouldn't be expected to have a wider color gamut than a 2k set, because the color gamut depends on what standard was used in the source signal, the software in the TV set, and the phosphors/filters used in the panel. So far as I know, none of these is especially connected with a difference in resolution.

On the other hand, there is a connection between resolution and dynamic range. LCD-LED sets usually have more peak brightness available than is usable for accurate rendering of video in the 709 spec. Supposing we get video conforming to a more advanced spec that allows high peak brightness, like rec. 2020, the next limiting factor is how many levels of brightness can be distinguished. Greater color depth gives more gradations, but so does greater resolution, because the apparent brightness of a given small area of the screen is determined by more pixels.

So it is possible that a 4k set could potentially give a higher dynamic range than a 2k set.
We're good, I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote. The claim was not being made by you. The claim made by a few vocal proponents throughout this thread seems to be that 4k automatically give better color and dynamic range. The new CEA spec would seem to allow for a wider gamut, but the specs aren't there yet, IMO, and it especially wouldn't apply with non-4k native source material. I believe Sage addressed the dynamic range issue. There has been nearly 19 pages of debate as to the claim of "better" color in a 4K panel, however... no matter which side of the debate you're on, I don't see how you could dispute that there has indeed been fierce debate over that point, in this thread. That's all I was saying: That there has been debate on that point.

IF anyone buys an LCD, obviously they're going to try to buy the LCD panel with the widest color gamut and highest dynamic range (among other features sought in a quality panel). No one in their right mind would dispute that claim.
Kalani is offline  
post #566 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
No. LCDs can get brighter but not without raising their baseline black level. This is why a TV like the VT60 has a better measured contrast than even the best LCDs because even though the panasonic can't get nearly as bright it can, however, get much 'darker'. Also, Dolby's proposed HDR uses a special panel that is capable of brightness an order of magnitude greater than what todays LCDs can manage.
LCD-LEDs can get brighter without raising black levels proportionately by relying on local dimming. (And Dolby's demo monitors, which are LCD-LEDs, demonstrate this.)

For Dolby Vision, you're confusing Dolby's proposed system for increased HDR with specific demonstration monitors that Dolby has used to illustrate and popularize its proposal. Evidently, Dolby is willing for the Vizio Reference set that was shown at CES to be called Dolby Vision capable, and that set is said to have 800 nits peak brightness. That is somewhat brighter than current LCD-LED models, but not an order of magnitude brighter. Also, Dolby spokespeople have said that current LED-LCDs do have enough brightness to support Dolby Vision, and the real problem is revising the rec. 709 standard that governs what happens between the video camera and the consumer TV.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #567 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,122
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 658 Post(s)
Liked: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
My cable channels are bluray esq in picture quality too.
At the risk of luring back the thread's 4k evangelist, how did no one call this comment out? HD channels on cable are most certainly not Blu-ray in picture quality. HD channels on cable aren't even on par with the best broadcast (OTA) channels. Nearly any Blu-ray disc is several steps ahead of both.
bblue and rightintel like this.
Stereodude is offline  
post #568 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 02:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 826 Post(s)
Liked: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post
imagic and fierce_gt, thank you both for your recommendations. And thank you, Sage, for yours. I'll definitely look into the Sony, along with the Vizio M. I'll do some more reading and consideration re the f8500, but I think plasma is going to be a tough sell for my father in law, especially given the high price compared to 4K, since 4K is the ultimate goal for him, at least in the long run. So a fairly pricey 1080p set is probably not in the cards.

I'm leaning towards recommending an inexpensive (but not cheap) 1080p LCD at this time, along the lines of the Vizio M and Sony models mentioned, with an eye towards upgrading to 4k in a year or three, when the market and features have matured a little bit. It makes the most sense to me, given the current state of flux. I don't know how easy it will be to sell, because he likes his toys (admittedly I can relate), but we'll see how it goes. The Vizio name will be an especially tough sell, but who knows, maybe my powers of persuasion will prevail, else perhaps the Sony will be what we're looking for. (he's a bit of a name snob (as am I, admittedly), but Sony has plenty of cachet)

Thank you all, for your insights! I have some more research to do... (and I remain open to other recommendations, while I read up)
this sounds like a good plan to me. just remember to tell him, the less he spends now, the more (or sooner) he'll be able to spend on a UHD tv when they finalize all the details. I know if I wanted all the toys(and I think I do), I would personally wait for HDR, or rec2020, or HFR or 10/12bit or whatever the other goodies are that eventually come with UHD besides a few extra pixels. I am interested in UHD, and actually a bit excited about some of the other proposed changes that come with the higher resolution. but so far, we've ONLY seen the higher resolution. and that's why I think 2014 is going to be an unfortunate year to NEED a tv. there's literally nothing on the market that can promise more than a couple years of relevance. I'm quite satisfied I bought a tv last year, as now I feel totally comfortable waiting for UHD to be 'perfected', and I'm in no rush to jump in too early.
Kalani and sage11x like this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #569 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
LCD-LEDs can get brighter without raising black levels proportionately by relying on local dimming. (And Dolby's demo monitors, which are LCD-LEDs, demonstrate this.)

For Dolby Vision, you're confusing Dolby's proposed system for increased HDR with specific demonstration monitors that Dolby has used to illustrate and popularize its proposal. Evidently, Dolby is willing for the Vizio Reference set that was shown at CES to be called Dolby Vision capable, and that set is said to have 800 nits peak brightness. That is somewhat brighter than current LCD-LED models, but not an order of magnitude brighter. Also, Dolby spokespeople have said that current LED-LCDs do have enough brightness to support Dolby Vision, and the real problem is revising the rec. 709 standard that governs what happens between the video camera and the consumer TV.
The issue there is compatibility. The Vizio Reference is still just a vague promise and would you bet your hard earned dollars that any of the currently available 4k displays will actually be compatibile with a standard that has yet to be officially proposed nevermind enacted? What odds do you give it?

Don't get me wrong-- I want this technology to be successful and find it's way to market. I want higher dynamic range and higher frame rates and (less so) more resolution. My only observation that I've been making since this thread started is that I'm not confident the displays available right now will be capable of these feats especially considering how I keep hearing about basic compatibility/future proofing issues such as whether or not the HDMI standard on current displays will be robust enough or how the hardware and software capabilities in these current sets might not be compatible with current Netlflix or youtube 4k, nevermind future streaming solutions. All of this gives me a great deal of pause when looking at 4k. Doubly so when I read hdtvtest's review of the new 8 grand Sony FALD 4k set and they complain about uniformity issues, blooming, below average viewing angles and having to choose between SOE or flicker. Ouch.

I'll wait a few years.
Kalani likes this.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #570 of 1786 Old 07-28-2014, 02:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,532
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
At the risk of luring back the thread's 4k evangelist, how did no one call this comment out? HD channels on cable are most certainly not Blu-ray in picture quality. HD channels on cable aren't even on par with the best broadcast (OTA) channels. Nearly any Blu-ray disc is several steps ahead of both.
In the evangelist's defense, Scott pointed out the supposed excellent upscaling as a possible arguement to upgrade to 4k without actual 4k content to watch in his original post. But I'm inclined to agree with you.

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

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
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