This post could assist a lot on the topic of this thread. Well said.
Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD
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
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)
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You think the 4k tv will be outdated in 2 to 3 years?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 So the thinking its buying an outdated tv to buy 4k is backwards.
Its outdated buying a 1080p tv.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.
A Samsung HU8550 won't be "outdated" in 2-3 years, but it WILL be considerably outclassed by TVs that have had an extra couple of years of development, and which will offer that much newer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.
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.
The 55 is about 2k at online sources. Usually cleveland plasma is comparable or better. You should consider this one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by sytech; 07-28-2014 at 09:42 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by sage11x; 07-28-2014 at 01:01 PM.
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.
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.
Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
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.
More Than Just Pixels: Extended dynamic range, higher frame rate, expanded color gamut–what they really mean to the viewing experience
HFR videos by James snare.
Carton bale and Viewing distance
Last edited by losservatore; 07-28-2014 at 04:05 PM.
I'll happily agree that it is possible to upscale 1080p to UHD and end up with a subjectively better result than 1:1 display of 1080p on a similar size screen. However, the algorithms to do this are extremely computationally intensive. These algorithms were not used in 1080p TVs for scaling SD or 720p. The standard billinear and bicubic scaling routines we find in TVs add ringing and soften the image.
Lets take a step back for a minute. It is also possible to make LCD panels without vertical banding, and make edgelit TVs that don't have clouding and flashlighting, but the CE companies don't bother to do so. The same TV makers who won't spend a little more to eliminate some of the more obvious flaws of LCD TVs have done an about face and decided to include these more expensive scaling algorithms in UHD sets when the vast majority of buyers wouldn't know the difference or even know they're present? They haven't bothered to fix the much more visible issues, but I'm expected to believe they're spending the money on very high end upscaling at the same time they're trying to dive the price of the UHD TVs and drive market adoption... I don't think so.