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 ·
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.
 
#128 ·
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")
 
#8 ·
I'd rather they fix the dynamic-range and colorimetry issues and let 1080P be the best it can be first. Its a nice big money grab at the moment.
Your message should be engraved on a gold plaque. It's incredible to me how we're in this endless race for maximum resolution, but they're forgetting all the other things that matter: colorimetry, color temperature, black level detail, freedom from motion artifacts, grey scale accuracy, and so on. For 2% the cost of adding 4K, they could just provide a reasonable Rec709 preset that actually produces something close to reality.

But instead, they throw in more bells and whistles, rather than giving viewers an accurate picture based on real industry standards. Sad.
 
#4 ·
Why buy a new outdated tv?

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.
 
#11 ·
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.
I think it's ill advised to buy a 4k set right now as the standard is still evolving. Changes in the hdmi standard, video codecs, and the addition of expanded color space, higher frame rates and perhaps even support for a higher dynamic range are all things the UHDTV standard has proposed. As of right now all you're getting is a more pixels.

I'd be sick if I payed the substantial premium for a 4k set today only to find out that it won't be able to take full advantage of the evolving UHDTV standard tomorrow. So in short...

Buy a 1080p set. :)
 
#5 · (Edited)
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."
very simply trick you just need the worst resizer availably is the fastest and it does exactly provide this result.
it's called nearest neighbor or point. by resizing 1080p to 2160p with this resizer you get a perfect 1080p picture on a UHD screen. the panasonic AX800 can do this by the way. so i don't get his point here... i can't recommended it at all for movies but it doesn't really hurt.

this topic isn't easy rescaling adds errors in the source even with high quality resizer or even interpolation resizer. it simply doesn't look better is looks different compared to the creates intend that's it.

native 4k 60 FPS is free available http://bbb3d.renderfarming.net/download.html there are more open video projects like this native rendered in 4k.
 
#6 ·
My view is the same as presented by Scott, until the standards are set in all areas, tv's and content are released that meet those standards there are better options for spending your money on. In terms of the 4k led's I have seen, all have fallen behind numerous 1080p plasmas in terms of pq, so why would I pay a premium for 4k currently? (note: I am extremely excited for what 4k hopefully will be able to deliver, I just don't think it is worth while yet).
 
#9 ·
my thoughts exactly , I wonder how a 4K Sony and a Samsung F8500 Plasma
would compare, side by side, with the same content from a standard seating position?
 
#7 ·
I'm waiting till 2017 before i buy any so called 4K TV. They should have the glitches and bugs worked out by then, so they will discontinue them and Amazon or Best Buy will have them cheap.
 
#745 · (Edited)
#12 ·
I am setting up a projection theater now, and I am preparing for the NEXT iteration of it to be 4K. My 125" screen should reveal the additional details, but I am not going to spend the big premium for today's true 4K projectors.

I will say that I've casually reviewed Sharp's 1080p 90inch Quatron at a BB Magnolia, and I was disappointed in the pixel density - I felt I could see the 'dots' on the screen. I did not see the same thing on their 80inch model. So I can say from my short experience, that I would not be inclined to pay a significant premium for television 4K except in the 80-90inch range. However, a 30inch 4K computer monitor would be right at home on my desktop. I can say that my next monitor WILL be >1080p. It offers more, useful, real estate.
 
#14 ·
Reminds me of the Megapixel wars for digital camera's about 10 years ago...got to a point where people started to realize that more megapixels don't always means a better picture....My Canon G2 at 4MP still blows away my 16MP point and shooter in terms of quality.

The reoccurring theme I keep hearing is that 4K is good for large screens only (60"+) but less than that and you see little difference. Like someone else mention, I'd rather see TV manufacturers focus on getting the most from 1080 sets since the majority of use don't have the room size, need, and/or luxury of getting a 60"+ size screen.
 
#271 ·
And the 3G/4G/LTE races the wireless carriers are engaged in. The reality it that the term "4G" means nothing because each carrier has their own standard. Even the LTE standards are slightly different. But, the carriers know that marketing 4G/LTE sells phones because 4 is greater than 3. When 5 is greater than 4, then the 5G phones will be all the rage even though a very small percentage of the population will be able to access that speed.

As for the the 4K, I can see why the set makers want to market that....it is a bigger number than 1080. Even the UHD moniker sounds way sexier than plain old HD....of which the cable/sat companies still make us pay extra for. Get ready for an extra pay tier on our programming for 4K. Suckers will pay for it too simply because they are told it is better.

I like technology advances. We live in an awesome time and I have been guilty of being sucking in to the spec wars. As an early adopter, I really do want the best technology first. It is in my DNA, but, I have to say that being in the market for a 70-80" tv now, where I was leaning to 4K, I am pretty firmly not now. Pricing is one main reason. The 4k/UHD push does have an effect on the pricing down the line. I am able to get a bigger TV for less $$ now than before the 4K/UHD days.
 
#16 ·
Unfortunately, a very large percentage have not seen HDR and a wider color gamut as Scott has. If we had NO one would buy a 4k set today. I bought a new 4k set because I needed another tv. The cost was not much higher than a 1080p.
No buyers remorse at all. I hope in a few years (if standards ever get settled) I'll buy again and hope like hell it makes my current 4ktv look like s#%t.:)
 
#35 ·
Stupid to buy current 4k tvs as they are now. Quad hd as they are known as :D Ultra hd is more than resolution and i hope the new bd specs udhd ur 4k as most calls it even i lol, includes a wider colour gamut n 120hz support...

I bought a 1080p oled n will be waiting .... :p
 
#37 ·
They stopped filming 1080p movies years ago. You been watching an watered down product.

It funny that we as consumers dont realize they need to have 4k sets in the market for 4k material too.

They have begun. If you buy a brand new 1080p set today then you missed an opportunity. Youll be back looking at sets in less than 5 years.
 
#38 ·
As someone that just bought a UHD TV I'd really like some native 4K content. I think the only 4K TVs anyone should be buying at this point is Samsung's because the AVSforum community has found out that they are using 10 bit panels in their curved displays (which Samsung is not touting) and they have an external box thats upgradable with all the processing in it. If any current TV's will do the final UHD spec it will be Samsung's.
 
#39 ·
I aslo bought the curved samsung.
Also Netflix already has 4k material and new movies pop up without warning. Now they have hitch, ghost busters 2, smurfs 2. More coming so the 4k material is there.

But NOT A SINGLE 1080P set has a picture that can compare to 4k 3d.
The 3d picture on my tv is better looking than the 2d picture on 99 out of 100 sets. The last one is debatable. As an owner of an extra large 3d colloection of blurays I find this to be a huge bonus.
 
#47 ·
The 4K quandary: To buy or not to buy? I aint buying anytime soon. It will be years before I even consider buying a 4K tv. Why? The standards need to be worked out and there needs to be more true 4K content to even consider buying one plus the price is a bit to much for my taste.
 
#50 · (Edited)
The CEA has sprung into action and has developed a voluntary to manufacturers standard to ensure that what you buy is a UHD set with the CEA seal of approval (to come). The set must at a minimum do 3840 x 2160, must scale 1920 x 1080 to 3840 x 2160, must have an aspect ratio of 1.78 or higher, do a color space at least as wide as BT709 at 3840 x 2160, do at least 8 bit, and have at least one HDMI input that will accept 3840 x 2160 at 24, 30 and 60 fps and is protected by HDCP 2.2 or its equivalent. Nothing else matters to get the seal of approval. Designed to tell consumer what is real UHD at this point and yet allow the industry to do more. No mention of other things. I guess those are not important to get real UHD, :) But at least they have forced all UHD manufacturers to go to a 3840 x 2160 at 60 input and to be able to handle HVEC.accept content protected by HDCP 2.2 or its equivalent.
 
#53 ·
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.
Scott. Can you explain in more detail how the above statement might be true for a panel like Toshiba's forthcoming L9400U? Thanks.
 
#54 · (Edited)
Well the ISF lists the four major factors affecting picture quality in order of importance as dynamic range (contrast), color saturation, color accuracy and THEN resolution. So basically the CE industry have given us the fourth most important aspect affecting picture quality and ignored the first three. Fun. Not seeing the point of 4k as it is available in the market right now. Especially considering most (if not all) of the 4k sets currently on the market would be a step down in contrast and color saturation from my VT60.
 
#57 · (Edited)
Its off topic but worth throwing in the ring...
In the time we've owned our 720P plasma we've all noticed the image quality has improved. This is most noticeable on big budget tv (satellite) ads. Equally important the sound quality has also improved. Both have improved so much that the advertisements often look and sound better than the program being viewed.
This could be supply related (Bell satellite in Canada) but its this same idea of a not so subtle improvement I'm looking for with current tech/displays.
Its not just new commercials compared against old content, its better content shining on old tech.
 
#58 ·
I am excited about the 4K TVs currently out there and the ones coming out. I am into photography and have went to some local stores to see my photos on a 4K set and it is very pleasing. However, I will be wanting more from a 4K TV and may just hold off for awhile and be happy with my 5 year old 1080p Samsung which is working perfectly. Unless it breaks down then I WOULD get a 4K TV without a doubt since the prices are getting very competitive with the 1080p sets.
 
#59 ·
DLP has strengths, particularly 3D if that is important to your viewing priorities. I have had a 4K projector for over two years now and I truly love it watching mostly 1080 i and 720p upscaled to 3840 x 2160. i think most of my love is do to the high quality of the projector as distinguished from just its ability to put 3840 x 2160 real individual pixels on the screen but even then there is something to the extra pixel density when viewed from 12 ft (my screen is 54 x 96) compared to a very high quality 1080p set.

The fact that more content is coming that is just 3840 x 2160 but with only BT 709, 8 bit doesn't excite me or justify buying a 3840 x 2160 set blessed by the CEA. Still overall its better. 2 years is truly wildly optimistic for getting a UHD that we went. The existence of technology is what sets a deliverable standard. Standards organizations and the CEA is a trade association whose purpose is to further the well being of its members tend to establish a standard based on what can be produced in a short short period of time. If you can't make it now, its useless as far as a manufacturer is concerned.
 
#61 ·
ISF rating the order of importance of various image quality parameters is a subjective determination by a body that I think is the expression mainly of one individual. The content one watches and the size of the display, seating distances, room conditions and the sensitivities of the viewer determine ones order of importance. I suppose one could collect a random cross section of viewers and do detailed studies as the the groups assessment of importance but as soon as you narrow the group to experienced videophiles, I suspect there would be differences in the ordering of importance.In the test for ISF certification for calibrators you actually have to memorize and spew back the list as if were verified gospel from above.
 
#62 ·
I'm not planning on replacing any of my existing TVs with a 4K. At least not until 4K content is playable in blu-ray. But, if one of my TVs breaks and I need to replace it, I'll get a 4K TV. The price difference isn't that great and I can see a difference between 4K content and 1080 content. 4K content looks much better to my eyes.
 
#63 ·
All of you above posters sure give a lot of food for thought.

From my perspective, I wont be considering buying in the near future a higher definition TV (>1080p) as mine works quite well - 65"VT50. I do want to keep up on what is happening with the newer technologies and screen so that when the time comes, I am up to speed on what to look for in terms of specs and reviews.

Given that many of us are into a fair investment in 1080p content, to get me to move to higher def would be more about how these newer TVs will handle 1080p and if* the technology might even produce a better picture. I don't know the latest jargon or true terms for TV (moving image displays) but having a background in photography and using software to generate "improved" images, I would hope that the TVs we are discussing here could do much the same with respect to gamut, border contrast manipulation and better dithering.

As for whether plasma should be in the discussion - I believe it should for a simple reason, if you want people to abandon their plasmas it is best to give them a good reason.

When it comes to making these purchases, I suppose many will be thinking of what else they will need to buy - AVR, possibly introduction of new media players (akin to Blu Ray etc.). It seems to me (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the AVR may be the last to go if* the source of the high def media allows for audio out on standard HDMI and then HDMI2x video out direct to the new TV. I suppose Oppo down the line might produce a "4K" player that will work this way.

Streaming media - Folks like Netflix say they offer 4K but what really is the source? Are these faithful true 4k transfers or up-converted 1080p sources? Given that Netflix has some question disc content for rent, it will remain quite suspect as to being of any advantage. Netflix continues to have offerings of 1080p discs that don't offer the HD audio tracks (often found with Lionsgate offerings) and absolutely the most wretched DVDs of older films that look like someone videotaped a television. The point is that there are no standards for minimum level of quality on streaming services or simply a "standard."

Tonight, I have friends over for a nice evening of The Fellowship of the Rings extended playing on my VT50 65", surround audio (Goldenear speakers, Marantz AVR) and I doubt any of my guests would say - "gee I wish I could see this with a better picture and better sound."
 
#64 ·
I can't think of any good reason to buy a 4K TV right now. Of course if you have the money, and don't need a good reason, there's nothing to recommend against it either.

To be perfectly honest, even after the color space is expanded, and there's a ton of native content, I still don't feel like it even approaches the difference between SD/HD.

Even though I can already self-produce the native content (4K PC games), it's still a really tough sell to me until it supports a variable refresh rate capable of at least 100fps@4K. Not even HDMI 2.0 can push that many pixels, nor have they stated any support for VRR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sage11x
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