AVS Forum banner

UHD/4K Quandary: To Buy or Not to Buy

Tags
frontpage
127K views 2K replies 260 participants last post by  RandyWalters 
#1 ·


Scott Wilkinson muses on whether or not native 4K content is necessary for 4K TVs and the wisdom of buying one now.

I'm on a lot of e-mail distribution lists; one of my faves is Insight Media's Display Central, which sends out a daily news item or blog about something in the display industry. Last week, one of those stories caught my eye—"4K TV Does NOT Require Native 4K Media" by Kenneth Werner. He argues that, because upscalers are so good these days, "experts can't see the difference [between native UHD/4K and the same content upscaled from 1080p] in side-by-side tests from distances of three feet or more. Even at nose-on-the-screen distance, the differences are subtle."

Based on some of the side-by-side demos I've seen, he could be right—at least, when it comes to high-quality upscalers. Ken cites Seiki's UHD/4K TVs as a counterexample—the upscaler in those sets has been universally panned, though they look quite good when fed native UHD/4K content. As a result, Seiki worked with Marseilles Networks to build its Technicolor 4K-Certified upscaling chip into the U-Vision HDMI cable that sells for around $40! Just connect your 1080p source (say, your AVR's HDMI output) to the TV with this cable, and voila—the TV is now receiving "native" UHD/4K. Seiki also introduced an upscaling Blu-ray player with the Marseilles chip for $99 at CE Week last month.

Another factor is that native UHD/4K content is not gushing out of the studios, in part because many of the elements other than pixel resolution have yet to be standardized; see my coverage of a recent SMPTE webinar that addressed this problem. Those elements are not likely to be settled upon for at least two years, so whatever native UHD/4K content becomes available in the meantime will have the same colorimetry and dynamic range as good ol' HD. Thus, it's no surprise that upscaled HD is very close to native UHD—everything about them is identical except the native pixel resolution, and upscaling by a precise factor of two in each dimension is relatively easy to do well (Seiki TVs notwithstanding).

Many people ask me if they should buy a UHD/4K TV now, and my answer is usually, "No, wait for the standards to be finalized and for TVs and content to implement those standards." That is still my advice if you buy a new TV infrequently—say, every 5-10 years. If you buy a UHD/4K TV now, it probably won't be able to display the higher dynamic range and wider color gamut in the content that's coming a couple of years from now—and in a side-by-side comparison between today's UHD/4K content and that future content on a compatible display, the differences will NOT be subtle, I can assure you.

On the other hand, if you buy a new TV every couple of years, getting a UHD/4K model now might make sense. They tend to be premium models with top-notch performance, so if you have the dough, you'll get the best picture quality available today, especially with a high-quality upscaler, either in the TV or external. Yes, these sets are more expensive than comparably sized HDTVs, but prices are dropping fast.

Then there's self-generated content. One of the earliest benefits touted about 4K TV is the fact that you can display digital photos at their native resolution—or at least closer to it than HDTVs can. And 4K camcorders are becoming more affordable every day, so all you budding filmmakers can see your work at full resolution. However, the dynamic-range and colorimetry issues remain.

So what do you think? Is Ken right that 4K TV does not need native 4K content? Is it unwise to get a UHD/4K TV now, or do the benefits outweigh the transitional nature of today's models?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+
 
See less See more
1
#588 ·
Like I said. You have access to the owners forums. I've also personally uploaded video of me taking pictures of the kuro shots. So before you try to act all high and mighty huhn. Pun. Do some research. The video is on YouTube. Same exact tv the shots came from.

Oh it's in hu9000 owners forum too.

You won't care but I made it 4k also.
 
#593 ·
@Mrorange303

so you meant me with that:
Mind you I'm not saying it beats your sets picture wise. I'm saying your pictures cannot beat it.

Meaning it is indeed doing a fantastic upscale job. That's all that's for.

Not to say my set is better. Unless your set is an 1080p led LCD. Then yes my tv is better.

But to say it cannot upscale. No. Just no.
can you plz show me where i said something like that?
 
#594 ·
MrOrange, can't you just accept that not everyone has the same goals or opinions regarding televisions. You aren't going to convert anyone to your "side". This isn't a contest. Just because some people don't agree with you and your assessment and haven't hopped on the UHD bandwagon doesn't invalidate your opinion of your set or mean you can't love it.

There is no perfect TV. If there was everyone would buy that one. Every TV is a compromise. Each person picks the compromises they can live with and the ones they can't and buys accordingly. Just because two knowledgeable people don't buy the same model doesn't mean one of them chose incorrectly.

Please give it a rest.
 
#596 ·
Yes I can. And your right. But im one 4k person. This thread should have 2 sides. Just as poeple have the right to give reasons for why not.

Is it not just as important for a potent I al buyer to see reasons for as well?

Or is this another thread of 4k is not ready. Because this thread has unfairly turned into another one of those filled with just that.

4k is not represented correctly here. Its value in the current market and the reasons for buying one today are not discussed.

We all know 4k is in its infancy. So was 1080p at one point.

Still it had benefits.

Ill stop. But this thread still has several members just spewing thinhs they read. No expirience with 4k.

Not a fair comparison. Believe me all 4k owners have had 1080p sets. Still do.
 
#598 ·
while I am jumping on the train I have to at least say I think 4k is accomplishing two things.

(1) its giving tv makers something new and exciting to talk about and hence the chance to return to some profitability (yes I said that) as the low end and low margin will
never inspire technical advances.

(2) 4k is going to come down in price (yes counter-intuitive) but never the less it will push development cycle and technology even harder as they clamor to claim market share.

Everything trickles down in commerce and the tv is no different. We have to accept a medium because sadly no matter how much we try to deny it, we cant have it all.

Look at the Sharp Elite. It was to be the holy grail of LED and its dead in the water. The point is get in if you want it now, wait if you dont. There will always be
"something new" on the horizon because we as a society like "New"

4k at least has more appreciable promise then some of the other past gee whiz bang tech (240 and 480 refresh..I mean really)
 
#607 ·
while I am jumping on the train I have to at least say I think 4k is accomplishing two things.

(1) its giving tv makers something new and exciting to talk about and hence the chance to return to some profitability (yes I said that) as the low end and low margin will
never inspire technical advances.
I agree that 4K is giving TV manufacturers a numerical reason to get people to upgrade their TVs. It’s difficult to say “This TV has color accuracy that is much improved over last year’s models” or “This television has better motion smoothing than that television,” but it is easy to say, “4K has four times as many pixels as 1080p!” But just like megapixels on a camera, something that’s a good marketing feature doesn’t necessarily translate to something that is best for the consumer. There are fantastic 5MP cameras and terrible 15MP cameras, and no one is saying, “Why would you bother with a 5MP camera? 15MP is the future!”

Beyond that, people continue to micro-analyze both color and detail from crude snapshots from a TV screen.

You can't do it, but people have been doing it for years and will continue to do it. Good luck with that.

How anyone can answer the '4K or not?' question from these images is absolutely beyond me.
It’s a data point, nothing more. Just because a camera photo isn’t a perfect representation of a screen, that doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. You can pick out things like MPEG artifacts and color differences and contrast and sharpness, assuming that you use the same camera for both images.

How do you know his 4K set is less accurate with the freckles? How do you know they "show up perfectly well on a 1080p set"? Do you have some unique esthetic intuition about how they ought to look that the rest of us can only envy?
First of all, the freckles showed up in the 1080p screenshot that he posted as well; they were very subtle, but they are definitely there. (In the 4K screenshot, the freckles are significantly darker.) Secondly, I can compare to all of the promotional images and even Blu-ray screengrabs from around the Internet. (I can post some comparisons later.) And finally, I have a VT60 that is ISF calibrated by a guy who trained under Joe Kane and does calibration for Pixar and Lucasfilm, so I can be reasonably sure what the Blu-ray looks like.

Yes, precisely what I was thinking Greg. Some seem to think that it's their display that is the standard by which all others will be measured. But beyond that, as I mentioned above, it's absolutely nuts to make fine, color assessments from camera shots where, more than likely, the camera's white balance is off and the color in the pix do not represent what's seen with the naked eye.
The same camera was used for both pictures, and you can tell the difference between white balance issues and having the whites completely blown out by the display itself. It’s obvious from the 4K picture that the fine subtle details are simply not there, a few freckles nonwithstanding.
 
#602 ·
Well ill say this. in every single print advertisment for the movie the freckles are a very distinct feature.

I preordered directly with disney and the prints have very prominent freckles.

Again if a person does not regularly watch animations. I have 4 kids. I know them line for line then the improvements may not be as dramatic.

But mostly which is more to what the director intended? The one you feel or the one that is closest to print material. Bluray covers..
Posters.


Isnt that what the director intended?
 

Attachments

#604 ·
So, Mr. Orange insists on using pictures as definitive proof of the the superiority of 4k vs 1080p (which is ridiculous, the method not the conclusion) and abates17 decides to play along and challenges his 'evidence' by going into great detail of what he sees wrong in these photos and now we're balking at abates17? Lol!
 
#606 ·
I also advised you how to locate the video in 4k. You can choose to or not. I agree pictures are a flawed way. Should I project a flawless mental image with my psychic powers?

I could post the video but there is an owners forum with it. If you dont wanna find it fine.

Maybe you should ask your fellow members not request pics of my set.

Hmm.
 
#605 ·
I have said for many years that pictures should never ever be used to show what the display's picture looks like.

Pictures are fun and that's fine, but to start an analytical discussion over 3 pictures and their connection with the actual display's picture is absolute folly. Lol!
 
#609 ·
I have said for many years that pictures should never ever be used to show what the display's picture looks like.
And again, an absolute like that is ridiculous. Sure, a photograph will never be a perfect representation of the display, but it can give some idea of what the display looks like. If you control the variables in the camera, it is possible to pick out things like MPEG artifacts or crushed blacks or blown-out whites or oversharpening. Do you think that displays are somehow magical devices that are impervious to being photographed??
 
#608 · (Edited)
So let's boil this down.

Reasons to purchase 4k now:
1. Future proofing*
2. To use as a monitor for your hi-po PC/gaming rig
3. Full resolution passive 3D**
4. To watch Ken's home video collection
5. Because Mr. Orange says so
6. You literally have money burning a hole in your pocket
7. More dithering!

* Assumes the 4k set you buy today is 100% compatible with all the 4k content and standards that haven't actually been established yet.
** On select models

Reasons NOT to purchase 4k now:
1. Cost
2. Hilarious lack of content
3. No enhancements to picture besides resolution / resolution may not be resolvable at normal seating distance
4. Bleeding edge / continually evolving 4k standard and features
5. Currently limited to LED-LCD displays only with all the disadvantages of that tech
6. Plasma only comes in 1080p... :p
7. 4k OLED on it's way***

*** Assuming you have money literally burning a hole in your pocket

_____

By my count that's seven reasons for and seven reasons against. So it's a draw-- buy whatever the **** you want. :D
 
#670 ·
Camera and lighting differences make that really really hard to do well. Different people, different cameras, etc.

Fairly comparison good pictures CAN be taken, but it does require a fair amount of photography skill, and as important, a camera with serious manual controls (which pretty much lets out every cell phone camera). I would hope it goes without saying that the exact same frame should be paused on both sets, as well.

Locking ISO, Shutter speed, and aperture, and then setting a manual white balance, and shooting from a tripod at a fixed distance (from both TVs!) can produce fairly useable comparison photos. Generally you need a DSLR or at least a relatively high end compact camera to have access to all of these controls at once. Cell phone cameras and the vast majority of point and shoot cameras do not.
 
#648 ·
What a fruitless discussion, remains me at times in the sandpit. Who has the best, great...
It's just a TV, Hobby, for me there is no perfect Set, System or whatever, in my opinion you may find a Television which means less Compromise to you, and this is maybe a Plasma or a UHD or...
 
#656 ·
Mark, as we make each resolution jump at this point, I don't see a corresponding increase in perceived benefits.

With the arguments about how large a screen or how close a viewing distance is required to enjoy the full benefits of 4K, I can only imagine what's required for 8K. We'll be watching 200" screens at 8'. Good luck with that. ;)

So no, I have no real interest in 8K. Certainly from an acquisition standpoint, I cringe at the thought of how large files sizes will become when we shoot in 8K. We'll certainly need new compression standards for 8K to make much sense. But the Japanese want it and I'm sure they CE industry will apply pressure once 4K is saturated.
 
#657 ·
Mark, as we make each resolution jump at this point, I don't see a corresponding increase in perceived benefits.

With the arguments about how large a screen or how close a viewing distance is required to enjoy the full benefits of 4K, I can only imagine what's required for 8K. We'll be watching 200" screens at 8'. Good luck with that. ;)

So no, I have no real interest in 8K. Certainly from an acquisition standpoint, I cringe at the thought of how large files sizes will become when we shoot in 8K. We'll certainly need new compression standards for 8K to make much sense. But the Japanese want it and I'm sure they CE industry will apply pressure once 4K is saturated.
Sure, but the whole discussion about 1080p vs. 2160p is not solely centered around the benefit of flawless content presented at native resolution. Every argument made here will be made for 8K—the only question is when.

When 8K does arrive, it'll be the same batch of questions: How does 1080p upscale to 8K, as opposed to 4K? How does 4K upscale to 8K, and is it better than native 4K? And most importantly, are the best TVs 8K TVs, whether we need those extra pixels or not, because 4K TVs are just cheap commodities?
 
#666 ·
I don't honestly pay attention to many reviwers from sites or mags that base most of their earnings on ads touting the very stuff they are reviewing. That is why few mention the distortion. I have seen just about all the curved sets and will be making a trip to VE close to the shootout to see what Robert has on display as I will not be able to attend the shootout. For me, the distortion is very obvious and I will never buy a fixed curved screen because of that. Hopefully they will put of the flexible screens to give us all the option and I will just lock it into flat.
 
#667 · (Edited)
The big argument that Scott brings up in his original post and the one that Mr. orange has been championing since is that 4k doesn't need native 4k content to look better than 1080p. That, thanks to sophisticated scaling, a 4k television can project a 1080p source image with greater clarity and quality than a comparable 1080p television.

I disagree but that's at least a discussion.

What I don't think anyone can make the claim for is that 4k is worth a purchase for the wealth of 4k content available. There is none. And I'm not counting home movies or a PC connection because that's not content-- it's a hobby. Home videos and gamers won't push mainstream adoption and at this point I think that's a big point of consideration before spending the extra money for a 4k set.

4k sets account for less than 5 percent of the total TVs shipped. 4k content is sparse outside of demonstration material and there is currently no infrastructure in place to deliver content besides highly compressed netflix streams which, based on demographic data from netflix, the vast majority of users won't have the bandwith required to access anyway. Bluray is 1080p, so is cable, satellite and OTA. Both of the new consoles don't support or plan to support 4k. I'm not saying 4k is going to fail but if I told you I was rolling out ANY other product and this is how I planned to support it and drive interest in the market you'd tell me I was insane! Lol!
 
#669 ·
That said the same thing to Tesla about not having charging stations etc.

They would never be a viable all electric car company.but they are.

To say there is NO content is wrong. If you aren't familiar with where or how to find content then please seek the 4k owners forums.

If you say there is little content to support the purchase to you then fine.

This part is not to you sage.

If anyone uses the excuse that you have to buy a new TV every year to stay modern that is a scare tactic.

Weather you buy the best plasma or uhd this year we are all in a transition period.

It is likely that any sets sold in the next few years are already outdated tech wise.

But is your 1080p sets going to stop working because 4k?

Not all all. You can choose to buy a new TV when it's right for you.

If you choose the best of now then you are set for years.

If you bought a 4k set today it still plays all the 1080p content just fine. Your good for years.

What we look for in a picture is different. I love the resolution and impact of depth. With good signal improved motion.

Plasmas don't care about motion. They rule motion. So If you love that feature you should only go plasma.

This is the issue. I could give the downsides to the tech over and over as many here do.

Or I can continue to spread why I believe they make sense. I'm not worried about that.

There are reasons buyers care for 4k. You guys will just have to accept we are not all the same and want different things.

not arguing it's infancy. You guys are.

I'm saying it's worth a discussion. The market has changed and there are additional factors to consider when buying a Tv.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top