UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 551Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 07:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by khal80 View Post
so the vizio m 70 over the 4k sony xbr850a 65"? sony for $400 more

the lighting isnt optimum for a plasma.

is there a difference between the M702i-B3 and the M701D-A3?
Thanks for the help fellas.
Yes, a big difference; the M701D-A3 is a 2013 model with LED edgelighting (and 3D), while the M701i-B3 is a full-array/local-dimming backlit model (with no 3D). The 850A is a 2013 LED edgelit model, and the 2014 version (850B) is also edgelit. In addition, the 850A has active 3D, while the 850B has passive 3D (which is better in my opinion, especially on a 2160p display).

I generally don't prefer LED-edgelit LCD TVs because of uniformity problems, but Sony does do a good job with them as far as I've seen, so the 850 is probably pretty good; I don't have any direct experience with it, so I can't say for sure. Anyone?

I just set up a Vizio 60" M series to review; I haven't calibrated it yet, but it looks pretty good with the basic picture controls set.

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
Yes, a big difference; the M701D-A3 is a 2013 model with LED edgelighting (and 3D), while the M701i-B3 is a full-array/local-dimming backlit model (with no 3D). The 850A is a 2013 LED edgelit model, and the 2014 version (850B) is also edgelit. In addition, the 850A has active 3D, while the 850B has passive 3D (which is better in my opinion, especially on a 2160p display).

I generally don't prefer LED-edgelit LCD TVs because of uniformity problems, but Sony does do a good job with them as far as I've seen, so the 850 is probably pretty good; I don't have any direct experience with it, so I can't say for sure. Anyone?

I just set up a Vizio 60" M series to review; I haven't calibrated it yet, but it looks pretty good with the basic picture controls set.
I have both. A samsung FALD 1080p and a hu9000 4k.
The blCks on the samsung are just as good except the lower left corner. It is slightly lighter in some cases. Most it's ink black. But some it turns just black.

I think it's an old saying that won't go away. Even if the tech is better now than ever.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #123 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 07:56 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: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by zrdb View Post
WTF!! I live in Aurora and you don't know what you're talking about dude. I love plasma tvs-how do figure living in Colorado means they have a shorter life span? Where is your proof? Tests to back your opinion? Baloney
It is common knowledge that many plasma televisions have buzzing issues and decreased lifespan at higher elevation. The gases expand causing the panel layers to slightly separate causing vibration,which in turn will make the electrodes that excite the gas work harder. This will cause the display to theoretically have a shorter lifespan,we're not saying the display will crap out in six months or anything.

http://samsungtvshop1.blogspot.com/2012/05/plasma-tvs-at-high-altitudes.html

http://www.cnet.com/news/plasma-tv-altitude-how-high-can-they-go/
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #124 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 07:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I have both. A samsung FALD 1080p and a hu9000 4k.
The blCks on the samsung are just as good except the lower left corner. It is slightly lighter in some cases. Most it's ink black. But some it turns just black.

I think it's an old saying that won't go away. Even if the tech is better now than ever.
Samsung hasn't made many FALD sets; what model is it?

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #125 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Shankenstein View Post
It is common knowledge that many plasma televisions have buzzing issues and decreased lifespan at higher elevation. The gases expand causing the panel layers to slightly separate causing vibration,which in turn will make the electrodes that excite the gas work harder. This will cause the display to theoretically have a shorter lifespan,we're not saying the display will crap out in six months or anything.

http://samsungtvshop1.blogspot.com/2...altitudes.html

http://www.cnet.com/news/plasma-tv-a...h-can-they-go/
Your nicer than I am. I feel ashamed now. I lost it. My bad. Thanks for the links. He could use a search. Before he posted too. Again your much nicer than me. Thanks for the reminder to keep it classy.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #126 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
Samsung hasn't made many FALD sets; what model is it?
http://reviews.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/...n55fh6030.html

This is in the kids room.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #127 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Ah, that one has full-array backlighting, but no local dimming. So not FALD, but FA...

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #128 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,668
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by UofAZ1 View Post
My view is there just isn't hardly any content to take advantage of 4K yet and by being an early buyer your gonna pay dearly for that. I recall when flat screens first came out and people were paying 20,000 yet a year later they were 3,500 and at that time Bluray was still a few years away.

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.
I'm sorry, that's BS. My first Fujitsu 40" 4:3 plasma was $20K, it was only 480p. It took about 20 years before bringing the price of the top end plasma to $5K.

Also it's BS if people can't see 4K display is indistinguishable from 1080p at 8' away (unless we're talking sizes smaller than 65")

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #129 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post
I'm sorry, that's BS. My first Fujitsu 40" 4:3 plasma was $20K, it was only 480p. It took about 20 years before bringing the price of the top end plasma to $5K.

Also it's BS if people can't see 4K display is indistinguishable from 1080p at 8' away (unless we're talking sizes smaller than 65")
Remember though that the average screen size in peoples houses less then 50" and the viewing distance usually around 10 feet?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
According to this thread get a 1080p set and sit far away. Then the picture won't matter because the 4k sets look the same from way way back.

Lol. That's still so good. Everything about the plasma picture is better they say? How about resolution? I also think 4k has way better color. But people argue that because they are conformed.

Get what you want. You know you want 4k. Get one. Or you will regret it. Don't let this thread change your mind.
Firstly 4k is a standard that is not used at home. UHD is. So you can't buy any consumer 4k products.

Currently uhdtv's run with the same rec709 color space as hdtv's. Plasma's are the leaders in color accuracy when it is lcd vs plasma. This is something that can and has be measured just as black levels can and have been etc. UDHD tv's do have the resolution advantage over plasmas, but outside of that and like all lcds they are better fits for bright rooms, plasma is superior currently in every regard. Also ones perception of how sharp an image isn't as simple as more resolution = sharper no matter what. There are far more factors at play. Once some more FALD Lcd's get released this may change, but currently plasma is still king when it comes to pq between lcd's and plasma's in all but well lit rooms. UHD has not changed this.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #130 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
Ah, that one has full-array backlighting, but no local dimming. So not FALD, but FA...
Awe gotcha. Well I apologize. But I do have a full array 1080p set to compare. My 4k gets as black as that one. Not too shabby.

The picture simply is way better on my 4k.

My room has the 55 f8000.

My living room has a hu9000.

Funny thing is I went to buy a Sony every time. Always ended up with a samsung.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #131 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,668
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 429
When we're talking about 4K we're not talking about regular Joe. Also in the past 2 years of doing calibration, I never encountered anything lower than a 55". Heck, even in my bedroom I currently use a 65".

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #132 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,901
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked: 1073
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAV View Post
Relevant article to this discussion

Study finds only 17% of U.S. broadband users are aware of 4K



"The industry is counting on 4K/UHD to be the solution for slow television sales and declining unit prices," said TDG president Michael Greeson. "This explicitly quantifies just how poor the demand for 4K/UHD televisions actually is and clearly demonstrates the current prices are too high to stimulate new sales."

Here's the rub who would have thought that one of the main problems with 4K is a widespread lack of awareness among consumers. Well duh, no 4K media, no 4k streaming unless you own a UDTV, whats the incentive?
I also find it interesting that there seems to be more desire for UHD from ppl buying cheap TV's. if I read between the lines, it's indicating that the kinds of ppl that value picture quality, and are willing to pay for it, have not been impressed with UHD offerings. basically it's what we've been saying all along. UHD is nice, but we don't want to give up the more important things like black level, contrast, color accuracy, etc just to get more pixels. UHD led vs HD led is one thing, but UHD led vs HD plasma/HD oled is a whole other issue entirely.
FilmReverie likes this.
fierce_gt is online now  
post #133 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post
When we're talking about 4K we're not talking about regular Joe. Also in the past 2 years of doing calibration, I never encountered anything lower than a 55". Heck, even in my bedroom I currently use a 65".
Regular Joe makes up for the overwhelming number of tv sales. If it isn't going to appeal to regular joe UHD tv isn't going to be anything more then a niche. I myself run a 65" plasma and a front projector setup. But I think I care fore my audio/video presentation far more then most (which has also lead to me using my 'small" 65" far more then my projector as the size difference just isn't as important as I once felt it was).

From what I have seen many find 50" to already be big enough (I have even heard it called to big, though 50" for me is the absolute smallest I would go for a tv and even then it would have to be a great deal). Many are not looking for a cinema like presentation and thus I am not convinced that bigger is necessarily what people as a whole want. This of course isn't true for enthusiasts, but we only make up a small portion of the market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I also find it interesting that there seems to be more desire for UHD from ppl buying cheap TV's. if I read between the lines, it's indicating that the kinds of ppl that value picture quality, and are willing to pay for it, have not been impressed with UHD offerings. basically it's what we've been saying all along. UHD is nice, but we don't want to give up the more important things like black level, contrast, color accuracy, etc just to get more pixels. UHD led vs HD led is one thing, but UHD led vs HD plasma/HD oled is a whole other issue entirely.
This sums up my thoughts very nicely. Most of the want for uhd tv's is currently just hype based, enthusiasts who have seen it have been happy with the extra resolution but let down by the other aspects of the tv.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #134 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,901
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked: 1073
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post
What we really need is an affordable, paper thin, flexible display that rolls out to 100+ inches.

I hate to say it, but people didn't buy HDTVs, they bought flat panels. The HD part barely factored into it.
that's a good point. I always forget ppl actually like the thin TV's, haha. I was one of those weirdos that tried to find a big HD CRT
fierce_gt is online now  
post #135 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,901
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked: 1073
Quote:
Originally Posted by khal80 View Post
I came to this thread hoping for answers......sigh, ha

I am in the market for a new tv ...today.

what does one do?

Im looking for a 65" or 70"

Theres deals for the 65" sony for $2400

or do i save a few hundred and get a 1080p...we would be sitting 12-15 feet away from this tv

Im even more lost. WWYD?

IMO, I would go for the f8500 as I still believe it offers better picture quality than any edgelit led is capable of.


if you're looking at led's anyway, then I'd consider the resolution of it to be a 2nd or 3rd tier consideration. i would never choose a tv based on it being UHD, but i wouldn't avoid a good tv just because it was UHD either.


1st tier(most important)
-size/price
-contrast
-blacks
-color reproduction
-motion resolution


2nd tier
-viewing angle
-input lag
-screen filter


3rd tier
-buzzing
-fan noise
-power consumption
-physical size(thickness, bezels, etc)
-number of inputs
fierce_gt is online now  
post #136 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post
Isn't the average screen size in peoples houses less then 50" and the viewing distance usually around 100 feet?




Firstly 4k is a standard that is not used at home. UHD is. Currently uhdtv's run with the same rec709 color space as hdtv's. Plasma's are the leaders in color accuracy when it is lcd vs plasma. This is something that can and has be measured just as black levels can and have been etc. UDHD tv's do have the resolution advantage over plasmas, but outside of that and the better for bright rooms all lcds have, plasma is superior currently in every regard. Also ones perception of how sharp an image isn't as simple as more resolution = sharper no matter what. There are far more factors at play. Once some more FALD Lcd's get released this may change, but currently plasma is still king when it comes to pq between lcd's and plasma's in all but well lit rooms.
" plasma is superior currently in every regard" you just said not resolution. Now if there is 4 times the pixels than how is there not 4 times the opportunity to display more color? Is this not the trick to sharp getting better color? Samsung with pur color etc?

The technology of edge lit has been given this stigma that won't leave it. However both samsung and sony have proven able to compete with edge lit sets.

Yet they won't be given the respect they deserve.

Also they look fantastic with motion.

The plasma and FALD 1080p sets cannot do 3d like a 4k set sending 1080p images brightly and crisp to each eye. I disagree with you there as well.

The sony set has the best speakers. I know I don't own it. But yet I bet you to find better stock speakers on a set. Those are 4k.
I still think chalk another one up for 4k.

And last about resolution. How can any 1080p set have a higher resolution picture in any circumstance than a 4k set scientifically?

Netflix and other providers are giving uhd sets material 1080p sets simply won't have. Chalk another win.

4k sets in fact can display current material in higher resolution. Improving the current picture. It adds depth even to older films.

Ghost busters 2 on netflix in uhd is the best you have ever seen it. Again not being a jerk but to me that's another win.

Everyone is so quick to claim how superior their sets are right now but I ask you if this is true then why do these things even exist? Am I wrong about them?

Don't give me feet away resolution yada yada count the pixels. I can see them. At least on a 1080 set. It's not fair to think everyone can't on a FALD.

Plasma is beautiful but it lacks the depth of a 4k picture. Sorry but it's true. When you own your set the depth may have slightly richer color transitions in your mind because it is rec standard for all 4k and a great 10bit panel.

But all movies you will buy even all the best ones in the next 5 years will be based off of 8 bit. That's because the market has so many 8bit sets the benefit to worry about 10bit panels won't matter until 4k is really begun a native 4k player and disk. That won't happen until a standard arrives. By then we have had all these benefits and
Ink blacks
While listening to old standard rhetoric for panel after panel of all edge lit displays. During the cut and paste of review with LCD blacks were horrible period. That's over.

I hope you stop being blind to the beauty you have a chance to have. It's amazing. It really is.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-21-2014 at 08:52 PM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #137 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 08:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I also find it interesting that there seems to be more desire for UHD from ppl buying cheap TV's. if I read between the lines, it's indicating that the kinds of ppl that value picture quality, and are willing to pay for it, have not been impressed with UHD offerings. basically it's what we've been saying all along. UHD is nice, but we don't want to give up the more important things like black level, contrast, color accuracy, etc just to get more pixels. UHD led vs HD led is one thing, but UHD led vs HD plasma/HD oled is a whole other issue entirely.
So the 4k sets are cheaper than the 1080 setsssss.........ok........people are paying more for plasma tv's your saying. Ok. Where do I begin. Sigh.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #138 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 09:10 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: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Your nicer than I am. I feel ashamed now. I lost it. My bad. Thanks for the links. He could use a search. Before he posted too. Again your much nicer than me. Thanks for the reminder to keep it classy.
This is our community that we turn to for advice and "real world" experiences of other users. We all take this very personally. Like a a football fan that stands up for their chosen team,we stand up for our chosen display tech and audio components. A little debate and education is what keeps us coming to this site,so don't be ashamed.
Mrorange303 likes this.
Dr.Shankenstein is offline  
post #139 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 09:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
igreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
I was hoping for a more evolved read. I think it would be ill advised to take a 1080p set knowing its just a matter of time for that resolution.
Any 1080p content usually looks better on a 4k set. Why buy a new outdated tv?
I think this also goes toe and toe with most 4k sets. Samsung has removed the brains making the line up upgradable at a fairly low cost and also leaves a much larger window for a set that complys with 4k standards.

The samsungs have spectacular 3d. Active 3d provides a bright, crisp 3d picture that is greater bluray when it comes to immersion.

No 1080p set makes 3d close to the same quality.

Netflix has already begun to release content.

The sets that support it really shine. The future won't be les and less 4k. It will be less and less 1080p content. Why not at least have a set that comes with a nice new viewing experience if it is available at an affordable price?

Those people who all ran out and bought 720 plasmas and eArly LCDs quickly had 1080 sets shortly after because of one thing resolution.

If we were talking anything else I would understand but resolution jumps are important and should be the first thing we consider now that 4k sets are available. Sorry but it's true. That will change once the saturation demands it. Oled vs LCD will be the new plasma vs LCD battle.

Plasma would still be alive if 1080p was all we had to worry about. You could buy a plasma today and know the tech was best.

What killed it? 4k. Because 4k plasmas was not realistic. If 1080p was still the standard plasma would still be alive.

All these things point to one thing.

Buy a 4k set.
Put can you really tell 1080i from 720p?
igreg is offline  
post #140 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 09:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Anthony1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 6,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 170
So, I know that Sony has it's box, and you can rent 4K stuff starting at like 8 bucks per night, right ? Or something like that....


What do Samsung owners do for content ? Or any of the other TV's besides Sony ?

Has anybody figured out how to hack Sony's box so that it will work with other 4K displays besides Sony ? At least with Sony, I can kinda get the appeal for buying a 4K set, if you actually have some content that you can depend on. Sure, it might be overpriced at $8, just to rent something for a night, but at least they have some kind of strategy of delivering content. I don't understand how any of the other manufacturers expect to sell their 4K displays without providing some type of service that will deliver some 4K content.

If I could get a 55 inch Sony, along with their new Netflix 4K compatible box, for say $1500 out the door, I think I'd jump in. Unfortunately, it's about $1,000 more than that, so I have very little interest.
Anthony1 is offline  
post #141 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 09:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
" plasma is superior currently in every regard" you just said not resolution. Now if there is 4 times the pixels than how is there not 4 times the opportunity to display more color? Is this not the trick to sharp getting better color? Samsung with pur color etc?

You are arguing semantics. I'm fairly certain everyone understood what I meant.

The technology of edge lit has been given this stigma that won't leave it. However both samsung and sony have proven able to compete with edge lit sets.

It has a stigma largely due to screen unifomarty issues. Untill those issues are widely resolved expect the stigma to stay.

Yet they won't be given the respect they deserve.

Also they look fantastic with motion.

They can, however plasmas and dlp currently look even better.

The plasma and FALD 1080p sets cannot do 3d like a 4k set sending 1080p images brightly and crisp to each eye. I disagree with you there as well.

Outside of the ability to do passive at 1080p this is simply not true. What dlp's have you seen to 3d at home? Have you seen the w7000? It is by far the best 'affordable' 3d display device I have seen and far better then any lcd uhd tv doing 3d is.

The sony set has the best speakers. I know I don't own it. But yet I bet you to find better stock speakers on a set. Those are 4k.
I still think chalk another one up for 4k.

Those sony speakers are nice especially for in built speakers.

And last about resolution. How can any 1080p set have a higher resolution picture in any circumstance than a 4k set scientifically?

Motion resolution, pixel spacing and the effect contrast etc can have on the perceived sharpness of an image

Netflix and other providers are giving uhd sets material 1080p sets simply won't have. Chalk another win.

4k sets in fact can display current material in higher resolution. Improving the current picture. It adds depth even to older films.

Upscaling doesn't add detail that isn't there. Some may smooth out the image and make you fell it is sharper which is definitely a pro, but the effect of something like the cheap darbett dablet on a 1080p tv has a more dramatic effect then simply upscaling 1080p content to uhdtv resolutions.

Ghost busters 2 on netflix in uhd is the best you have ever seen it. Again not being a jerk but to me that's another win.

I have seen a 35mm print. So I am inclined to disagree.

Everyone is so quick to claim how superior their sets are right now but I ask you if this is true then why do these things even exist? Am I wrong about them?

UHD tv will be a thing of beauty eventually, but the current sets are widely seen as not being superior to numerous other displays as outside of the extra resolution they simply do not provide for a jump in quality (and in many area are inferior to what else is currently available). This nearly always happens when tech is advancing.

Don't give me feet away resolution yada yada count the pixels. I can see them. At least on a 1080 set. It's not fair to think everyone can't on a FALD.

Plasma is beautiful but it lacks the depth of a 4k picture. Sorry but it's true. When you own your set the depth may have slightly richer color transitions in your mind because it is rec standard for all 4k and a great 10bit panel.

A 10bit panel, using an 8bit source. The colors of an lcd didn't suddenly get better simply as the resolution was increased. They currently remain inferior in terms of color to what is available on plasma.

But all movies you will buy even all the best ones in the next 5 years will be based off of 8 bit. That's because the market has so many 8bit sets the benefit to worry about 10bit panels won't matter until 4k is really begun a native 4k player and disk. That won't happen until a standard arrives. By then we have had all these benefits and
Ink blacks
While listening to old standard rhetoric for panel after panel of all edge lit displays. During the cut and paste of review with LCD blacks were horrible period. That's over.

It really isn't. The blacks still fall far behind what is available elsewhere. I already have inky blacks when I use my plasma, why would I get exited by the ability to get what I already have later? They are getting better but the main issues that lcd's have is still prevalent. Also most movies are still made using a 2k DI, so if you expect a flood of uhd tv movie content, prepare for quite a wait.

I hope you stop being blind to the beauty you have a chance to have. It's amazing. It really is.

I have viewed UHD tv many times and been unimpressed for reasons I fell I have made clear. My next tv purchase will be uhd, but only once they are superior to what is available today. Now the idea of a matured oled or a well don fald lcd that are uhd and meet whatever the standard is (it better not just be a resolution bump), now that is something that interests me.
Answers in bold. I also use lcd, plasma and dlp at home. There are simply areas where each tech is better then the other. In terms of dark/darkened rooms plasma is the clear victor when compared to lcd televisions and remains the king of picture quality regarding these three techs.

Last edited by FilmReverie; 07-21-2014 at 09:33 PM.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #142 of 1818 Old 07-21-2014, 09:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post
Answers in bold. I also use lcd, plasma and dlp at home. There are simply areas where each tech is better then the other. In terms of dark/darkened rooms plasma is the clear victor when compared to lcd televisions and remains the king of picture quality regarding these three techs.
.........
bruceames likes this.

Last edited by Mrorange303; 07-21-2014 at 09:50 PM.
Mrorange303 is offline  
post #143 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 12:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,901
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked: 1073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
So the 4k sets are cheaper than the 1080 setsssss.........ok........people are paying more for plasma tv's your saying. Ok. Where do I begin. Sigh.
you can begin by reading what I ACTUALLY said... you couldn't have put more words into my mouth on purpose.


the survey(or so I read it) grouped ppl into price categories. the ppl looking to spend under 1000bux had a higher percentage interest in UHD than the ppl looking to spend over 2000bux.


what I'm saying is that the ppl who are willing to pay money to get the best display they can, aren't as interested. where we go from there is total speculation. I just thought it interesting that UHD was more appealing at the low end of the market than at the high end of the market. I'm sure if the survey was done on OLED, we'd see more interest in the high end, as usually, something that is an improvement in quality will be more appealing to the high end of the market.


don't get lost in uhd vs plasma. those are two totally different things. I'm not even prepared to say that all UHD TV's are better than all 1080p tvs, or that all plasma TV's are better than all LCD TV's. I'm far more inclined to say that TV's of all types and all resolutions are made in a range of quality. and I will always take a higher quality tv over a lower quality tv. if that means I choose a high quality 1080p plasma over a lower quality UHD LCD, that makes perfect sense to me. likewise, I'd take a high quality UHD LCD over a low quality 1080p plasma. whatever tv is better, that's the one I'm interested in.
fierce_gt is online now  
post #144 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 12:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
losservatore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 338
Scott thanks for this article,this article like many others on the web prove that I wasn't wrong about buying a VT60 this year.
losservatore is offline  
post #145 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 12:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,901
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked: 1073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
" plasma is superior currently in every regard" you just said not resolution. Now if there is 4 times the pixels than how is there not 4 times the opportunity to display more color? Is this not the trick to sharp getting better color? Samsung with pur color etc?
no, not even close. the number of pixels has nothing to do with color. each individual pixel determines the amount of color. sharp added a fourth subpixel, which also is 100% marketing BS. every single color is a combination of red/green/blue. the addition of any other subpixel is unnecessary, and complicates calibration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The technology of edge lit has been given this stigma that won't leave it. However both samsung and sony have proven able to compete with edge lit sets.

Yet they won't be given the respect they deserve.
err... they sell well, but so do Honda civics. doesn't mean were gonna see a bunch of civics at LeMans anytime soon. so far, no company has made a decently uniform, let alone perfectly uniform, backlight using edgelighting. the 'stigma' around edge lit LED's is more a fact of life. like accepting that plasmas will always use more energy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Also they look fantastic with motion.
I have seen some with great processing that allows for the appearance of good motion. I worded that carefully because I don't know if they have good motion or it just looks that way, I don't really care. end result is, yes, some LED's are pleasant to watch sports, games, or whatever fast action scenes on, imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The plasma and FALD 1080p sets cannot do 3d like a 4k set sending 1080p images brightly and crisp to each eye. I disagree with you there as well.
true. and if that's your primary use, it may be worth it. I'm not sure if 3D is popular enough though. for myself, I'd never give up 2D quality for 3D quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
The sony set has the best speakers. I know I don't own it. But yet I bet you to find better stock speakers on a set. Those are 4k.
I still think chalk another one up for 4k.
speakers have nothing to do with 4k, nothing. if you want speakers on a tv(I don't, ever) then chalk one up for THAT MODEL, but those speakers could be put on anything. I doubt very much there's a market for 50" 4:3 CRT RPTV's right now, but many of those had full size speakers, and even 'sub' woofers in them. so by your logic, I guess SD>UHD... right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
And last about resolution. How can any 1080p set have a higher resolution picture in any circumstance than a 4k set scientifically?
I'm not sure anybody ever said that. I'm sure what they said(this is what I think) was more about matching source resolution to display resolution and the fact you can't get any higher resolution than the source. if 100% of your sources are HD, then a UHD display can't give you any more detail anyway. in some cases, the 1:1 pixel mapping and no upconversion can even give a better image. so, with current sources, at worst the 1080p tv looks the same. at best, it's slightly better. with UHD sources, the UHD display wins hands done in terms of resolution, I don't think ANYBODY would deny that. but the question of whether or not you sit close enough to take advantage of that can still be a personal debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Netflix and other providers are giving uhd sets material 1080p sets simply won't have. Chalk another win.
I feel like you are REALLY struggling to find important 'wins', and this is just another example. do you really believe there's going to be a show/movie that you can't watch on Netflix unless you have a UHD tv anytime soon? as far as I've heard, they haven't even started filming in 4k yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
4k sets in fact can display current material in higher resolution. Improving the current picture. It adds depth even to older films.
again, this is kind of a vague argument that gets debated a lot on technicalities. on one hand, the UHD tv will display an image with more pixels. so if that's how you define resolution, you are correct. on the other hand, no display can ever display something that isn't part of the source content, so by that definition, it's not really a higher resolution. if you see pixel structure, a UHD tv will alleviate that with 1080p or lower resolutions. but it's not going to add detail that was never there to begin with. you may end up with 'smoother' looking images, but they won't have more detail.
as for adding depth and improving the picture. it's pretty well agreed on that things like deep(and uniform) blacks, good contrast, and accurate colors do a lot more to make images look realistic. don't get me wrong, I like the idea of more resolution, it's just not the highest thing on my list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Ghost busters 2 on netflix in uhd is the best you have ever seen it. Again not being a jerk but to me that's another win.
umm, ok? not to be a jerk back, but you wouldn't catch me watching ANY non-animated movie on an edgelit LCD. not really a shot against UHD as a format, just the current options available right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Everyone is so quick to claim how superior their sets are right now but I ask you if this is true then why do these things even exist? Am I wrong about them?
why do what things exists? the products companies want you to buy? I think you can figure this out. companies have realized that disposable and frequent upgrades is a better business model than quality and long life cycles. newer is no longer necessarily better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Don't give me feet away resolution yada yada count the pixels. I can see them. At least on a 1080 set. It's not fair to think everyone can't on a FALD.
not sure what this is about. FALD has nothing to do with pixels. that's a different argument completely. I think most ppl agree that UHD is better than 1080p, the debate there is whether it's 'better enough' to really care yet. I think given enough time, and natural replacement cycles, we're all going to move on to UHD eventually. the argument about FALD is against edgelit LED. at any resolution, edgelit LED is an inferior backlighting technology that results in more uniformity issues, and often worse blacks levels and contrast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Plasma is beautiful but it lacks the depth of a 4k picture. Sorry but it's true. When you own your set the depth may have slightly richer color transitions in your mind because it is rec standard for all 4k and a great 10bit panel.
at some point, a great UHD display, and a great UHD source will be available and this will be true. not because of the higher resolution, but because of the improved color and bit depth. based on CURRENT models, a good plasma still offers a superior picture, except for the number of pixels. I truly believe only OLED will be able to take full advantage of the UHD spec. that is something I'm looking forward to. I don't need higher resolution, but i'll never pass up on better gradation, deeper blacks, and more accurate colors.

in the end, I still think the '4k' is marketing hype RIGHT NOW. at some point, we'll get the source, and the technology that can really take advantage of the UHD format. but it's just ridiculous to think all '4k' TV's are created equal. just because a tv is 4k doesn't make it good, and it doesn't make it better than a 1080p tv. right now, there's a lot of pretty terrible 4k TV's on the market. maybe there's a couple of really great ones, I haven't seen them. only one I've paid any real attention to was the 55" sony from last year with the bulky speakers, and it did not impress. even when I was in the market for a tv(my RPTV finally died last year) I found several 1080p TV's with superior picture quality. too bad most of those beauties are off the market now though
fierce_gt is online now  
post #146 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 02:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I feel like you are REALLY struggling to find important 'wins', and this is just another example. do you really believe there's going to be a show/movie that you can't watch on Netflix unless you have a UHD tv anytime soon? as far as I've heard, they haven't even started filming in 4k yet.
Most films shoot digitally seem to be shoot at 4k and above, however the DI is nearly always 2k. The reasons for which are rather well documented for the film Girl with a Dragon Tattoo (the American version) which is a film that had a 4k DI and the amount of work and effort that was required to be able to do so was substantial. There have been a small number of films shoot at 4k that also use a DI, but these are very rare. Whilst I think 4k content will increase slowly thus UHD content at home will also. I don't think there is a market beyond a niche currently. If you fell there aren't enough 3d films for example, then you are going to be upset to see how many 4k films there are (some old films will benefit from 4k [especially those shoot on 65mm etc like The Sound of Music, most however I think have near on if not all of the detail available view able in a 2k scan, in any case I don't think old films is what will drive interest in 4k and UHD tv).


Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I'm not sure anybody ever said that. I'm sure what they said(this is what I think) was more about matching source resolution to display resolution and the fact you can't get any higher resolution than the source. if 100% of your sources are HD, then a UHD display can't give you any more detail anyway. in some cases, the 1:1 pixel mapping and no upconversion can even give a better image. so, with current sources, at worst the 1080p tv looks the same. at best, it's slightly better. with UHD sources, the UHD display wins hands done in terms of resolution, I don't think ANYBODY would deny that. but the question of whether or not you sit close enough to take advantage of that can still be a personal debate.
I believe this was directed at me. I essentially said that whilst resolution is a huge factor in perceived sharpness there are indeed other factors that change how we perceive image sharpness.
Marc Wielage likes this.

Last edited by FilmReverie; 07-22-2014 at 02:41 AM.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #147 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 05:20 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1879 Post(s)
Liked: 3187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrorange303 View Post
Aurora lol. Nuff said. You dont realize plasmas use oxygen to produce the picture. Guess what colorado has less of than any other state? So in fact the plasma is working harder to produce that picture. Im 33 and have been around for the prime of plasma. I worked for a retailer and had to sell the sets. How about you? I know no one in colorado who still has a plasma 5 years later. No one. Aurora. The hood of colorado. I live next to the mountains its even worse here. But what you know about that?
The gas (which is not oxygen) in a plasma panel is sealed in the glass. A plasma TV does not require oxygen in the atmosphere to operate. The specific mechanism that causes problems for plasma at high altitude relates to atmospheric pressure—the glass panel expands due to the pressure differential. That makes it a little bit harder to energize the phosphors. As with other areas of performance (energy efficiency, resistance to IR) plasma got better at handling high altitudes over the years.

Also... and this is just for trivia's sake... Wyoming has the highest average elevation of any state, not Colorado.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #148 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 06:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 611
OLED will be a niche for the rich. There is simply no pressure that will reduce it to popular mass market pricing and the public simply doesn't care. Quality is essentially irrelevant to the buying public. Its good enough for them. They have spoken and the answer is big that's BIG for cheap. Advertising is powerful and will convince them and has convinced them the edge lit LCD is GREAT. Plasmas, which for sake of argument have much better video qualities than edge lit LCDS, have failed in the market place. The public won't pay the higher price and the potential for return diminished to a point that the industry abandoned the technology.

We care. But we are a very small niche. And the rich component of that niche is obviously much smaller. Its just like any luxury product. If you want it and have the money, buy it. If you can't afford it then do something so you can or just look down at your feet and say the world is unjust. OLED will never be cheaper than a plasma although shipping costs are far less, The public won't pay the extra costs. The niche market to the extent it can pay will. So keep the price high enough to generate a return. Competition for the niche? Maybe we will have a BMW vs Mercedes. Panels can only be made by industrial giants. No businesses started in a garage. There is no potential for this technology in the large panel market to generate enough return unless the prices are kept high to justify the R&D and production.

Advertising can pound 4K, nothing more than 4 times the clarity, more immersive, and look ma, its like my girl friend, nice curves.


Colors. Everything in the world, that's what they thing that Rec or BT or whatever gices them especially if a best Buy plumber calibrates it for them.

CEA is to be commended for its new UHD standard, Joe will be able to receive protected streaming content and protected downloaded content.

Any new Bluray standard etc for other things will be backwards compatible. Wider color space longer bits. Not a care. The one thing that will create some demand is HDR sets. But not at a large cost . the public doesn't care enough. right now LCD edge lit is like the early days of CDs, perfect video forever.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #149 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 06:46 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1879 Post(s)
Liked: 3187
I wouldn't buy a UHD/4K TV before (at least) one major streaming/download service starts offering mainstream movies—from multiple studios—in UHD. There's nowhere near enough UHD/4K content out there at the moment. All the hype about upscaling is just that—hype. It's just like 3D used to be; there's nothing to watch, but you get the feature anyway if you decide to spend the big bucks on a top-of-the-line TV. Already, the prices of UHD/4K TVs are coming down as fast as 3D HDTV prices did.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
post #150 of 1818 Old 07-22-2014, 06:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrorange303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,782
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
you can begin by reading what I ACTUALLY said... you couldn't have put more words into my mouth on purpose.


the survey(or so I read it) grouped ppl into price categories. the ppl looking to spend under 1000bux had a higher percentage interest in UHD than the ppl looking to spend over 2000bux.


what I'm saying is that the ppl who are willing to pay money to get the best display they can, aren't as interested. where we go from there is total speculation. I just thought it interesting that UHD was more appealing at the low end of the market than at the high end of the market. I'm sure if the survey was done on OLED, we'd see more interest in the high end, as usually, something that is an improvement in quality will be more appealing to the high end of the market.


don't get lost in uhd vs plasma. those are two totally different things. I'm not even prepared to say that all UHD TV's are better than all 1080p tvs, or that all plasma TV's are better than all LCD TV's. I'm far more inclined to say that TV's of all types and all resolutions are made in a range of quality. and I will always take a higher quality tv over a lower quality tv. if that means I choose a high quality 1080p plasma over a lower quality UHD LCD, that makes perfect sense to me. likewise, I'd take a high quality UHD LCD over a low quality 1080p plasma. whatever tv is better, that's the one I'm interested in.
Or you read a bad survey.
Mrorange303 is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage



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