Originally Posted by Exponent
- Glare and reflections are bad. During a dark scene, it's like looking into a full-length mirror. (On the plus side, this encourages getting back on a fitness regimen.)
- Colors have a lot of pop. It isn't OLED, but it's a whole lot better than the 84" 4K set also on display.
- Vertical banding was very apparent in some of the demo scenes.
- In my opinion, if you're set on the 55" size, don't bother with paying extra for 4K - it is a VERY marginal improvement.
- For 65" TVs and above, 4K pays off, to the extent the source material (lens quality and focus) are up to snuff.
You were probably watching pristine demo content.
The distance equation changes dramatically when you use streaming services (or future IPTV services like 4K UVerse, etc)
4K @ 20Mbps looks a hell a lot better than 1080p @ 5Mbps.
I can see problems with 1080p @ 5Mbps on a 47" HDTV.
I also know 4K @ 20Mbps looks MASSIVELY better than 1080p @ 5Mbps.
So there's still a good reason to buy 50" 4K HDTV's: Watching streamed 4K content.
4K @ 20Mbps looks closer to 1080p blu-ray quality, while 1080p @ 5Mbps doesn't.Compression artifacts are MUCH BIGGER than a pixel.
So 4K is useful at 10 feet away from 50" HDTV's, precisely for this reason: Low bitrate 4K is better looking than low bitrate 1080p (assuming same bitrate per pixel ratio, scaling upwards, 20Mbps versus 5Mbps -- compression artifacts shrinks in visibility). Besides, 4K will eventually cost a small premium over 1080p -- the $1200-$1500 SEIKI 4K HDTV is an early indicator of this eventuality.Edited by Mark Rejhon - 5/2/13 at 7:08am