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
#2,034 · (Edited)
I have been reading both samsung threads and people do complain about issues but a group of people is on denial and ask this people to not post anything negative lol funy by they way they totally ignore a person that returned 3 tvs so far and posted a pretty bad looking picture which I know you guys hate to see on the thread ,people talking about upscaling looking bad and trying to look for solutions like darbee and iScan mini ,blaming on satellite ,cable ,channels and movies because the tv cant do the uscaling right.

who is been honest on this 4k upscaling discussions?


Mrorange you can count my posts on this thread and do a comparison to yours and get to a conclusion.

my computer register 4 posts by me in this page vs 8 post from you.


I wonder if the new 2015 tvs that have a more powerful processor and better spec is not already itching? and this 2015 are still missing some spec that will come in the next generation so another itch till everything settle down.
 
#2,038 ·
A few members have issues. Very little. I read the f8500 threa d as well and I'm sure you can agree its comparable.

All TV will get better. That's how they are suppose to be right? That's a issue in your eyes.

I do wish I had HDR.

I won't go buy a new TV. No need. Members can use whatever outside products they want for enhancements. You also note most members ignore it because they don't use anything and in fact suggest the opposite. Its their choice. Their opinion.

They choose to use those things. We don't force our opinion. Much like yourself with 4k.

My conclusion from your post is ready. You spend more time telling people they are wrong for wanting a 4k TV then in your own plasma forums. That's ok. I don't really care. This 2015 you joke so much about is a nail In the coffin. Real life. Plasma is done.

Your going to have to move on. 4k is here now. More and more its going to be a topic.

Plasma had no discussion in those threads. Those folks have moved on. I will as well from this thread. Im just saying man you have to move on. 4k is what it is. The next step. Plasma didn't make it. 4k comes in many different tech. QD, Oled, LED LCD, LCD. Many threads will come of it. I have as much right to any thread as you. But I get the plasma owners feel I should exit this thread about 4k. Ok no prob. I'll move on............ ............
 
#2,051 · (Edited)
You are trying to twist everything and make this a competition,I think that everyone will
understand my point , first I was talking to MrOrange and I was trying to explain again that pixels are not the only thing in image quality,because I'm tired of repeating the same thing in different ways.did I mentioned you? no,right?so why you step on all of my posts?

you can keep your vintage stuff enjoy your setup and your Black Friday tv.
 
#2,057 ·
Again, this is a simplification of human vision as a single camera.

The eye is continually moving when viewing a scene, gathering information to construct what it sees. So the actual perceived image would take in more than just a very static snapshot of a display.

We also have two eyes, each offset and gathering slightly different perspective than a single eye. As I said (and in the article, I think) the eye is more like a movie camera or multiple exposures than a single unblinking camera.

Just my 2 cents.
 
#2,060 · (Edited)
Why I haven't jump into UHD/4K because is a new standard that hasn't been finalized,second the best PQ displays are way too expensive for example the Panasonic 65" AX900/ AX902 $7,000 , Sony XBR65X950B $7,000, LG OLed 65EC9700 $9,999 ,Samsung UN85S9 $40,000.

No thanks I keep my 65"VT60.

 
  • Like
Reactions: steve1971
#2,061 ·
I agree there a few select members who decide their opinion is above anyone else's and they find any 4k thread and then repeat the same old arguments for plasma.

The issue is they ignore owners experience and say what they read on the internet is more valid than the reviews of over 300 owners.

The lie about the uhd sets to lower them below plasma any way they can. They don't understand the black levels nor motion performance current sets are capable of. They also don't know what amount of content is out there because they don't have a 4k set.

I've always said its crazy how they speak about all 4k sets like they are the same.

I have the 65" hu9000 curved top of the line 2014 Samsung. I paid 3500.00 back in June.

Quoting msrp is yet another tactic they use.

Like I said smoke and mirrors that will die with plasma this year.

There is issues with plasma too. You have to back up to get a great picture. Up close you get dithering and buzz noise. The sets get hot and heat a room. The highs of whites never reach the levels you seen in nature and therefore you never get the level of true contrast you should when viewing various light scenes. Daytime viewing is highly impacted and although impressive with motion they will never give you the feeling of a live sporting event. Like the 4k sets which when connected to a OTA signal can be an at the stadium expirience.

My point is you don't ever see the 4k owners repeat this over and over.

Because it doesn't apply to all plasma and we all know its benefits and short comings. Instead we defend 4k and why what we see everyday is new, refreshing and awesome.

They just choose to continue not to allow the owners a voice and choose to use charts over real life expirience as a reason to void every expirience any owner has when defending the technology.

They should just argue why plasma is the choice they make.

Instead they are on a trash 4k campaign.
 
#2,066 · (Edited)
Ill chime in since in fairness, Ive owned a couple 4K sets(I returned them but still) so I have some experience with them but Im also a pretty big fan of plasma too.

First of - NO tech is perfect. I agree that plasmas arent the best choice for super close viewing and they do suffer in brightly lit rooms. Id counter the second problem by stating that I dont see why anyone would watch ANY TV in a super bright room so that one always seemed over-rated to me. For critical viewing, most of that takes place at night for many of us.

Id argue that plasmas dont have good contrast. They sure do. Thats why those black levels matter so much. Strong contrast starts with deep blacks. The Sony XBR65850B I owned for a few weeks was a good overall TV but it had lousy blacks. The IPS panel Sony choose to use was a bad decision, IMO. The Samsung 8550 I owned for a while had much better blacks but did have poor viewing angles and its own set of issues.

Both of the 4K sets I tried looked absolutely breathtaking with 4K content. No argument there. The problem is that those sets did NOT look any better than a 1080p set with any other types of material. This upscaling stuff sounds good in theory but as hard as I tried to "sell" myself on the upscaling I always just shrugged my shoulders and said "meh". Cant tell the difference between a good 1080p set or a 4K set with 1080p content. Just wasnt there. So, I had spent $2500 bucks(sony and samsung were same price) for a TV that was "future proof" and did look awesome with 4K content but nothing else about it validated the $2500 asking price. I didnt feel it was that good of a value. Plus, lets face it - since CES there is lots happening yet with TVs and Im not sure I wanted to be a beta-tester or early adopter at this stage. Not this time. :)

Overall, after much "fretting" I decided to just go with a basic 64" 1080 plasma for the time being. I saved a bunch of money and didnt feel like I was paying for stuff I didnt need(smart hubs, 3D, this, that, etc). I got a TV with superb image quality with no frills or BS. That works for me.

For those that love their 4K upscaling or have managed to find a large amount of real content to watch on them: Good for you....enjoy! But, for many of us the value just isnt there and with many things still waiting to be ironed out as far as TV tech goes it seems that laying low right now isnt a bad option.

One thing I will say though: LCDs in general STILL have work to do with some fundamental problems that they just arent taking seriously enough. Such as:

1) Black levels. Yeah, they are better but still dont cut it in most cases unless you spend an enormous amount of money on a full blown FALD set.

2) Motion. Its better but an awful lot of "processing" has to happen for it to be right and even then its never fully "right".

3) Edge Lighting. This is sadly a deal killer IMO. Its asking too much from the technology to properly backlight a giant TV using just a side light source. Every single LCD Ive seen or owned with edge lighting has clouding, questionable uniformity, and light bleed. The light bleed is the killer - in a dark room the light bleed ruins the experience, IMO. The black bars are half gray or you get small blobs of light where it should be black. Just doesnt fly. They seriously have to STOP using edge lighting and go full array in any TV over 50 inches. Enough is enough. You want proof? Just check every LCD thread and you'll never run out of material to read regarding clouding, bleed, edge light problems, etc, etc. Its non stop. Some are better than others and theres always a guy with a perfect one. Overall though, edge lighting is just yuk.

So, native 4K content on a 4K set is the best. 1080p content on a 4K set is no better than on a good 1080p set. Plasma is dead or dying but they STILL get some fundamental PQ things "right" which makes them worth buying even now if you dont want to go "all in" with 4K just yet. And, LCD tech still has some work to do.

My bet is on OLED...... we shal see :)
 
#2,062 · (Edited)
Again twisting what I post.I will just ignore ...instead of staying in this thread and your display thread ,I invite you to join the front page articles http://www.avsforum.com/


have a great day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve1971
#2,063 · (Edited)
1080p chart upscaled to 4K on the Samsung (image -> Flickr App -> Apple TV -> HDMI -> Samsung). Photo taken from a distance of 7 ft. Photo is unaltered (but I am expecting the usual cynics to chime in). Resizing JPG caused moire in certain areas. Edit - I noticed that it looks a litte more saturated than on the screen - come to find out its my camera is set to Vivid mode.



 
#2,067 · (Edited)
Ok, to follow up on my fact finding mission, I've decided to take the EPX algorithm I previously showed at work and alter it using my image processing algorithm experience.

All I did was extend the equivalency portions of the algorithms to careful range checks. I started by putting in a 1/4 range check (64/256) on each of the RGB components of the image. The results are interesting.

Keep in mind, again, there is no interpolation going on here. Or if you are hung up on that definition, there is no color value between two other values implanted in this image. The domain of colors in both cases are the same.

Note1: that the semi-close values are left alone to the NN algorithm, and that the higher differences are carefully upscaled due to the north/east/south/west neighboring evaluation of the algorithm. This algorithm does not exist out there that I know of----it's my creation just to experiment.

I'll leave the program out of it for now, because it'll make non-software-engineers eyes gloss over. But keep in mind that I'm trying to keep this as brain dead an algorithm as possible.

Note2: Notice that the image file name is implanted in the upper left corner of the image.

Note3: This is upscaled from 1x1-->2x2, with both NN and my EPX (EPX_TGMclose) and THEN 1x1->4x4 NN'd so you can see how the details were assembled.

Note4: This is not a sharpening algorithm. That is using an entirely different approach.

Regardless of your conclusions here, the results are interesting.

 

Attachments

#2,071 ·
I'm not sure if this will add any value for anyone else, but concerning the back-and-forth over 0.7 arcminutes minimum resolution stuff, 20/10 vision vs 20/20 etc:

A couple months back I had posted in a different thread/subforum that the standard charts used (Carlton-Bale etc) indicated that there was little/no value in moving to 4K displays if you sat 10ft or more from a 60" screen (or similar scenario). But after some further digging, I found this site:

http://www.synopsys.com/Company/Pub...mi-2.0-IssQ3-13.aspx?cmp=Insight-I3-2013-Art3

The chart relating screen size, distance, and resolution does not seem to have any references, but does indicate that higher resolutions are perceived differently (at greater distances, or smaller displays) than the CB chart illustrates.

I also found this site:

http://informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2013/MayJune/EnablingTechnologyPQM.aspx

This describes experiments to measure "Just Noticeable Differences". I'll re-quote a section:

At a viewing distance of 9 ft., PQM analysis predicts that on any display of 32
in. or more, the improvement from 720p to 1080p results in a
meaningful improvement in perceived quality (Fig. 6). On 42-in. and larger
displays, the improvement from 1080p to 4K resolution creates a
meaningful difference in perceived quality; the difference is dramatic
for sets that are 55 in. and larger.
In both cases, the benefits of 4K are realized at a closer distance than the CB charts.

I suspect that imgrund's calculations are perfectly correct, but they are based on facts, that while true, may not be all there is to the story. Those calculations are a tool for predicting perceived resolution, in essence a theory backed up by certain experimental evidence. Nonetheless, it is possible for theories to evolve, based on new evidence that doesn't contradict the majority of the existing body of evidence, but allows for complications that may alter the overall theory. e.g. General Relativity vs Newtonian Physics.

The Wikipedia article (it must be true!) for Visual Acuity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity) mentions Vernier Acuity:

Vernier acuity measures the ability to align two
line segments. Humans can do this with remarkable accuracy, it is a hyperacuity. Under optimal conditions of good
illumination, high contrast, and long line segments, the limit to vernier acuity is about 8 arc seconds or 0.13 arc
minutes, compared to about 0.6 arc minutes (20/12) for normal visual acuity or
the 0.4 arc minute diameter of a foveal cone.
It goes on to state:

Because the limit of vernier acuity is well below that imposed on regular visual
acuity by the "retinal grain" or size of the foveal cones, it is thought to be a
process of the visual cortex rather than the
retina.
In other words, the basic sensor data is being manipulated/interpolated/integrated to give results that seem to exceed the basic sensor resolution.

Is it not possible that those folks that seem to perceive 4K as being a better picture are doing so because, well, to their brains it is indeed a better picture, regardless of the raw data being fed from the retina? Perhaps the vernier acuity capability of the eye/brain combo is allowing these people to perceive differences (improvements) in image quality that are not predicted by the eye-as-CCD limited resolution calculations.

Dunno, just some food for thought. I'm just hesitant to believe that today we know everything there is to know about any particular subject, including the limits of human vision/perception and how to measure it.
 
#2,074 ·
I'm not sure if this will add any value for anyone else, but concerning the back-and-forth over 0.7 arcminutes minimum resolution stuff, 20/10 vision vs 20/20 etc:

A couple months back I had posted in a different thread/subforum that the standard charts used (Carlton-Bale etc) indicated that there was little/no value in moving to 4K displays if you sat 10ft or more from a 60" screen (or similar scenario). But after some further digging, I found this site:

http://www.synopsys.com/Company/Pub...mi-2.0-IssQ3-13.aspx?cmp=Insight-I3-2013-Art3

The chart relating screen size, distance, and resolution does not seem to have any references, but does indicate that higher resolutions are perceived differently (at greater distances, or smaller displays) than the CB chart illustrates.

I also found this site:

http://informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2013/MayJune/EnablingTechnologyPQM.aspx

This describes experiments to measure "Just Noticeable Differences". I'll re-quote a section:



In both cases, the benefits of 4K are realized at a closer distance than the CB charts.

I suspect that imgrund's calculations are perfectly correct, but they are based on facts, that while true, may not be all there is to the story. Those calculations are a tool for predicting perceived resolution, in essence a theory backed up by certain experimental evidence. Nonetheless, it is possible for theories to evolve, based on new evidence that doesn't contradict the majority of the existing body of evidence, but allows for complications that may alter the overall theory. e.g. General Relativity vs Newtonian Physics.

The Wikipedia article (it must be true!) for Visual Acuity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity) mentions Vernier Acuity:



It goes on to state:



In other words, the basic sensor data is being manipulated/interpolated/integrated to give results that seem to exceed the basic sensor resolution.

Is it not possible that those folks that seem to perceive 4K as being a better picture are doing so because, well, to their brains it is indeed a better picture, regardless of the raw data being fed from the retina? Perhaps the vernier acuity capability of the eye/brain combo is allowing these people to perceive differences (improvements) in image quality that are not predicted by the eye-as-CCD limited resolution calculations.

Dunno, just some food for thought. I'm just hesitant to believe that today we know everything there is to know about any particular subject, including the limits of human vision/perception and how to measure it.
This is some great information. I would be curious to see the raw data from the 3M study from Information Display, re: PQM Analysis. The Synopsys table has no references or data to back it up so it's rather useless.

Great find though with PQM Analysis. Adds some interesting information to the debate!

And frankly, what's the fun if theory always matches practice?
 
#2,078 ·
Wow, 70 pages of this? Really?

The real problem with 4k is that it requires you to buy a lesser TV. A shootout with one plasma, one OLED and four 4K LCD's ended up with nobody picking any LCD as the best display.

4k is marketing fluff developed by panel manufacturers that want to push the replacement cycle. It's harder to sell TV's now that everyone has something flat. 4k SOUNDS better and looks better when some clueless joe is staring at the manufacturer's 4K content 3 feet from the panel in a box store. You need a big TV and you need to be sitting pretty damn close to notice the difference. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist with 1080P. It's not like people watch blurays now and complain that they can't see things on the screen.

4k is great for 3d and people who own projectors. Otherwise, someone buying a TV should look for the panel with the best picture. That's likely to be something that doesn't have 4k involved.
 
#2,080 ·
So that was only for 1080p content. They never showed 4k content.

Hard to trust an unbiased opinion of 4k in those conditions. Further more it would be nice to see some proof manufacturers use better panels in plasma sets as you claim.

Please share a link.

Again the issue is members putting their own opinion above another's. Saying a person is wrong because they have a different opinion.

Maybe you can also advise why the test you mention they refused to allow both Joe Cane and Ken Ross to display 4k content. Both made note they had USB drives at that shootout with 4k content. Neither was allowed to show it.

So why would we want to take that test ad a reason not to buy 4k?
 
#2,085 · (Edited)
You haven't understand that PQ and Resolution are two different things ,you also don't understand that dynamic image and static image are also two different things ,what this people care more is about how those pixels work with motion , for filmmakers film is supposed to have a magical look you don't want a film/movie to look like a soap opera or too real ,that's destroying the magic of a film/movie.


unfortunately everything is going into that direction were movies are looking like soap opera or like watching a behind the scene featurette.
 
#2,086 ·
You haven't understand that PQ and Resolution are two different things ,you also don't understand that dynamic image and static image are also two different things ,what this people care more is about how those pixels work with motion , for cinematographers film is supposed to look soft you don't want a film/movie to look like a soap opera or too real ,that's destroying the magic of a film/movie.


unfortunately everything is going into that direction were movies are looking like soap opera or watching a behind the scene featurette.

I don't care for your opinion. You clearly don't care for anyone else's. You also completely missed the point.

That was pretty much as simple as I can make it. Agree to disagree.

Speak for yourself. You think everyone has to agree with you. But I don't. I think resolution adds a tremendous quality to a picture. You may not. But don't put your standards on me man. I choose my own sets.
 
This post has been deleted
#2,088 ·
The film look came from the choice of 24fps (partly for cost reasons in early days). I always thought the "film" look was because of the need for slow shutter speed (24fps and 1/48 sec exposure) rather than resolution issues. The 1/48 second exposure allows motion to blur and yield the "filmy" look, while modern video equipment allows e.g., 1/1000 second exposure in good light and if something is shot like that and is shown at 60 fps you can sometimes see individual elements making a trail of high resolution separate images rather than a blur (but a fast pan will be "clearer" and less "blurry"). This is a consequence of how the material was acquired, rather than how it is presented, surely? The use of a 180 shutter (1/48 for 24fps) allows the maximum blurring during acquisition to give the "film" (aka blurry) look. I think many times that doesn't look "real" - this is why some like it for some purposes, right? It's definitely not suitable for many other purposes so the viewer's preferences are responsible for their reactions. If 1/48 is right for 24fps, then 1/120 sec exposure is right for 60fps (Check out this perspective of Showscan - film shot at 60 fps
Trumbull theorized that although viewers see smooth motion from film displayed at 24 frames per second (fps), the standard in motion pictures for decades, they are subconsciously still aware of the flicker. This awareness reduces the emotional impact of the film. As the speed of projection ramped up, so did the emotional response.
The lamp flicker of 24 fps is easily concealed by flashing the lamp at 72 fps (3 flashes for each frame) but the motion flickering is what he was talking about.


I just saw the final epi$ode of the Hobbit - partly out of interest in HFR 3D. I had seen some of the other LOTR/Hobbit movies in (film i.e., slow FR) 3D and any time there was motion it became very blurry and largely unwatchable, both from the 3D as well as general clarity viewpoint. That problem was largely absent from the 48 fps version. AKA the LFR "film" look totally sucked while the HFR didn't. After being sensitized to this, the next movies I saw were in 2D and the motion panning was back to terrible. That was distracting. I accept that some movies and directors like the softness and smoothness of "film" for some scenes (heck even whole movies:D) but when whole screens go blurry it's intrusive and breaks up the continuity of the experience. I wasn't sure, before this 24 fps and 48 fps comparison, how much of the panning blur was due to the digital projection/compression issue, but now I have some idea what is possible.

What might satisfy the "flimy/blurry" lovers is an interpolation method that generates 4k images from 2K 24 fps source that look blurry like they were exposed for the traditional shutter speed, rather than creating 120 or 240 frames of smooth motion of a crisply rendered object. Just switch off the motion part of the interpolation, perhaps? If the problem is perceived as coming from shooting original material at higher frame rate and using the 180 degree shutter, then the upscaling from 2k to 4k should also (re-)blur successive images together to (re-) create the blur from the desired film shutterspeed. I doubt if I would use such a setting myself, however.
 
#2,089 ·
I've never seen people come up with so many reasons Not to buy something. Very impressive technical ones at that. All I can say is just keep waiting, and waiting for all those reasons you've listened to be addressed to your satisfaction. That will probably be 2020-2025. After that you can wait some more for software to appear. Then you might be dead!
Meanwhile I'll keep watching my 2001 calibrated Mits whic still has a beautiful clear film like picture. Talk about being bypassed by technology. I do have a 4k tv and Oppo 103D on order for a small home theater.
 
#2,090 ·
I have a Sony XBR79X900B and I bought it directly from Sony and had it immediately upon release as it was preordered I have been wholly disappointed with the reliability of the product and it's apparent flaw in circuitry which has caused me to have it replaced 4 times...that being said when it works the picture is phenomenal I do wish I had went with the curved Samsung 78" I have seen it and it is a better product and superior design with the one connect box and evolution kits you will be able to upgrade it as needed...and I have seen 65" 4k Samsung for 2k at best buy. ..that's a great price for a top line 1080p I would think once you have 4k watching 1080p will be like watching SD after you saw HD 1080p..
 
#2,093 ·
I have seen 65" 4k Samsung for 2k at best buy. ..that's a great price for a top line 1080p I would think once you have 4k watching 1080p will be like watching SD after you saw HD 1080p..


What??
 
#2,091 · (Edited)
I'm not in any hurry, the 2014 4k TVs that I like are in the 7,000 to 9,000 price rage :eek: and from what I know those tvs do not have the full specs for the UHD blu ray player, also my tv is just one year old, I still have time ,better TVs are coming and prices will lower.


I wan't a Fald or Oled not edge lit.
 
#2,097 ·
I wan't a Fald or Oled not edge lit.
Agreed, I don't know why anyone wanting to have the best picture from a LCD would choose a 4k set this year that's edge lit. When 4K Full Array lcd's sets will be available. I guess pricing plays a big part in people's final decision along with gimmicks and marketing hype.

OLED 4K = king of kings in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: losservatore
#2,106 ·
For those budget conscious folks considering 4K LCD from last year (2014? yikes!) ... wanted to share video showing the viewing angle of my LCD 4K. Some may find it awful, others may not.
But it's not the angle from the side that I have a problem with. It's the angle from above. When I'm sitting watching my Samsung 4K, it's no problem. However, when I stand up, the picture goes gray and ugly.
 
#2,109 ·
I am in total agreement with you and I don't know which unit is the best option but I wish they could just get their crap together so we can look at the specs and know how good the TV is like you can do by 1080p specs for those sets...you know like refresh rate and motion rate processor and stuff but with the 4k units it seems those numbers don't mean anything
 
#2,114 ·
You can always wait, and newer models will have more features.

But is it worth buying? I've been holding out on getting a new TV for a while, but I think this might be a good time to dive in, at least if you want 3D. The extra resolution and passive 3D is huge.

My concern is whether or not 4k is worth it at all? Some people don't seem to notice a difference between 720 or even 480 and 1080, and if you sit far enough away, maybe the difference is just too subtle to care. But comparing TVs up close at the store, 4k definitely looks better.

My thought is, don't upgrade for just one feature, but for multiple features. If it were just for 4k, I probably wouldn't bother, but other improvements make it seem worthwhile to me.
 
#2,115 ·
Been enjoying my 55-inch 4K set immensely. Looking forward to SB-Sunday. Also noticed that the increased resolution has made me used to watching the set from a much closer distance (5 feet) for a very immersive experience. So last weekend, I went to Best Buy and paid a second visit to the OLED area. They only had the 1080p OLED ... and standing at a similar distance the jaggies on the image were very distracting. Waiting on 4K OLED to come down in price.

 
#2,118 ·
Currently , Yes, LG is the only manufacturer that has retail product in the stores now, here, today. The other manufacturers are pretty much being fence sitters for now. There is a rumor about Panasonic having an OLED in the works with a possible release this year but I think that it's more likely that they won't have product. And used their OLED prototype to promote that they are infact interested or showing interest in the technology of OLED but aren't ready to make the jump as of yet.
 
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