Does anyone have a 4k TV?
Discussion
Do not buy, as it's an absolute waste of money right now. The spec for '4k' hasn't even been finalised yet, so if you did buy it, it most likely won't be able to display proper '4k'/UHD in the future.
Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
Edited by mp3manager on Tuesday 3rd June 04:38
As above....
The 4K sets that are on the market at the moment are very impressive, but.... only with the manufactures content that is provided for the demo.
Netflix are banging on about streaming 4K, but I don't know that many people with the appropriate bandwidths for that! We are awaiting a standard agreement between the big players as well as HDMI2 to be finalised.
Hold on to your money for the time being.
Chris
The 4K sets that are on the market at the moment are very impressive, but.... only with the manufactures content that is provided for the demo.
Netflix are banging on about streaming 4K, but I don't know that many people with the appropriate bandwidths for that! We are awaiting a standard agreement between the big players as well as HDMI2 to be finalised.
Hold on to your money for the time being.
Chris
re: Can you see the difference? I found this interesting:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-20131...
As others have said, I think we need to wait for a proper 4K standard. Netflix isn't really it as far as I'm concerned, simply because I don't stream things. For me 4K won't be real until 4k blu-ray (if that ever happens...) appears, which will hopefully provide for 60fps and an enhanced colour space as well as increased resolution. You'd be pretty annoyed if you bought a TV today, and then the standard comes out and you can't take advantage because you don't have HDMI 2.0 ports, HVEC 265 processing or whatever.
On the other hand if you want 4K get 4k...for the same reason my car has a V6 when I only really need a 4...
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-20131...
As others have said, I think we need to wait for a proper 4K standard. Netflix isn't really it as far as I'm concerned, simply because I don't stream things. For me 4K won't be real until 4k blu-ray (if that ever happens...) appears, which will hopefully provide for 60fps and an enhanced colour space as well as increased resolution. You'd be pretty annoyed if you bought a TV today, and then the standard comes out and you can't take advantage because you don't have HDMI 2.0 ports, HVEC 265 processing or whatever.
On the other hand if you want 4K get 4k...for the same reason my car has a V6 when I only really need a 4...
shielsy said:
this is quite interesting...
I think this diagram is very, very misleading....We have been looking at new televisions recently and you can clearly see the difference of a 4k set over that of a 1080p set even when standing closer than 9 feet.
Having said that, it is still too early to go for 4k IMO... I think we are going down the route of a Bose Videowave as it's the most wife friendly solution.
Chris
Having looked at a HDTVTEST review of the TV I can get I'm steering clear just now.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/49ub850v-2014060337...
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/49ub850v-2014060337...
HDTVTEST.co.uk said:
The LG 49UB850V is not only the worst 4K TV we’ve tested, it’s also the worst-performing television we’ve reviewed to date in terms of image quality. Its subpar picture performance is made all the more difficult to accept by the display’s retail price of £1500.
toohuge said:
I think this diagram is very, very misleading....
We have been looking at new televisions recently and you can clearly see the difference of a 4k set over that of a 1080p set even when standing closer than 9 feet.
that's kind of the point; it's only when the viewing distance is decreased that the higher resolution has any benefit.We have been looking at new televisions recently and you can clearly see the difference of a 4k set over that of a 1080p set even when standing closer than 9 feet.
Oakey said:
It's a stupid diagram because it's by an American, for most people in the UK they'd be lucky if there was more than 10ft between them and their TV...
whether it's american or not, it's just illustrating the viewing distance vs screen size required to perceive the benefit of additional resolution. personally i wouldn't want to sit 5ft away from a 60" tv... i'd probably just buy a smaller one.i guess the thing to remember is that resolution is not the be all and end all of picture quality... far from it in fact. the review link posted above confirms this. just bear in mind that most commercial cinemas are effectively 2k-4k on screens the size of a house.
Edited by shielsy on Tuesday 3rd June 23:11
Edited by shielsy on Wednesday 4th June 11:04
shielsy said:
whether it's american or not, it's just illustrating the viewing distance vs screen size required to perceive the benefit of additional resolution. personally i wouldn't want to sit 5ft away from a 60" tv... i'd probably just buy a smaller one.
i guess the thing to remember is that resolution is not the be all and end all of picture quality... far from it in fact. the review link posted above confirms this. just bear in mind that most commercial cinemas are effectively 2k-4k on screens the size of a house.
The diagram you put up does not tally with the article I posted, if anything I guess it means people just need to have a look around and make their own mind up. I believe the makers of that diagram have used a simplistic model of how the eye works to produce that diagram, without taking into account how the brain collects multiple images from both eyes and merges them to create the view you see. It effectively means we see in a higher resolution than simply counting the number of receptors we have gives you and explains the discrepancy between theory and practice. Maybe.i guess the thing to remember is that resolution is not the be all and end all of picture quality... far from it in fact. the review link posted above confirms this. just bear in mind that most commercial cinemas are effectively 2k-4k on screens the size of a house.
I've recently bought a projector, and watching blu-ray's at 84inch shows that there is a staggering level of detail in them, so much more then I appreciated on my 46inch TV. It does make you question if you need any more detail on a TV size screen, perhaps frame rate and colour space are more important...
You are absolutely right to say there is more to image quality than resolution (or brightness, or contrast or any other single thing). In this test:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793...
the 4k TV's came last, ultimately beaten by the oldest set on test.
What I wouldn't give for a flat, 55inch, 4K OLED though!
mp3manager said:
Do not buy, as it's an absolute waste of money right now. The spec for '4k' hasn't even been finalised yet, so if you did buy it, it most likely won't be able to display proper '4k'/UHD in the future.
Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
A good friend of mine films wildlife and also underwater for a living, whilst filming in Bali, they were already using 8K cameras, so what then will happen to 4k?Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
Edited by mp3manager on Tuesday 3rd June 04:38
Edited by Wozy68 on Friday 6th June 13:57
Wozy68 said:
mp3manager said:
Do not buy, as it's an absolute waste of money right now. The spec for '4k' hasn't even been finalised yet, so if you did buy it, it most likely won't be able to display proper '4k'/UHD in the future.
Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
A good friend of mine films wildlife and also underwater for a living, whilst filming in Barley, they were already using 8K cameras, so what then will happen to 4k?Anyway a 49" display is far too small for 4k/UHD.....80" and upwards is regarded as the sweet spot.
The problem with 4k according to the Home Theater Geeks
http://youtu.be/DximOi-6fFE?t=11m49s
Edited by mp3manager on Tuesday 3rd June 04:38
just this year i finally replaced my 32" crt as i was at last convinced that flat screens had a picture as good or better.
now just 6months later the 4k screens are out and compared to the Samsung i bought, meh! i don't see the difference even with the pictures from the manufacturers.
perhaps i am a philistine as i actually think mp3's sound clearer to me as well
even if i won the lottery tonight it will be a while before i buy the next telly.
now just 6months later the 4k screens are out and compared to the Samsung i bought, meh! i don't see the difference even with the pictures from the manufacturers.
perhaps i am a philistine as i actually think mp3's sound clearer to me as well
even if i won the lottery tonight it will be a while before i buy the next telly.
The graph posted above (which I've posted on other threads of a similar ilk, a while ago), is accurate. Visual acuity isn't based on a survey, it's an accurate measure of what the human eye can resolve (and not from the perspective of good vs bad eyesight). RED have produced a very good article on the subject which is worth a read. As posted in other 4K threads, the things to bear in mind before buying a 4K TV include:
The diagonal screen size of a 4K TV, to be worth the extra outlay above a 1080p set, needs to be around the 80" mark for a start. If you buy a 40" display, it would be great as a PC monitor, as that's the only viewing distance that makes the resolution increase a benefit. This ties into the info in the graph above - simply put, the human eye cant resolve resolution changes such as 1080p to 4K, if you're either:
A) Sat at a typical living room distance to your TV.
B) Have a relatively small size TV.
They might look fantastic in John Lewis, in dynamic mode, with you viewing them from a couple of feet away, but you cannot replicate your living room environment in a shop - and the last thing you want is to get a shiny, expensive, state of the art TV home only for it to be an anti-climax when you find it looks no more detailed than your last 1080p TV.
Whilst the sets on display at the moment are 4K in resolution, they're essentially a stop gap until a 4K standard has been agreed. Wider colour gamuts, 10-12 bit colour etc need to be firmed up. If you absolutely must jump on the early adopter bandwagon, then so be it, but it most likely wont have the right innards to display native 4K content when it becomes available (as in actual feature films and broadcast TV shows). There's minimal chance of seeing a 4K Blu-Ray disc as movie studios have no interest in a new disc format, and they drive the industry, so what they say goes (unfortunately).
Speaking of content, the Beeb will be testing the feasibility of 4K broadcasting during the forthcoming World Cup, or at least in their studios - none of it will be broadcast to Joe public. It could turn out to be a complete ballache for them, but the Beeb are good at putting their money where their mouth is to try these things, and the World Cup has always been a good test bed for new AV tech.
The only thing that is guaranteed regarding the futureproofing of a 4K TV bought today, is HDMI 2.0 - the rest is all up in the air, and it's a big price to pay to only be able to watch some YouTube clips and a few LG & Sony demo discs IMO.
4K holds more benefits to the projector market - and us folks interested in that have yet more hurdles to overcome as the delivery system for 4K, where available, is tied into TV manufacturer's i.e. Sony's server system. Unfortunately it's a case of waiting a while, until the specifics of the 4K standard are agreed IMO.
The diagonal screen size of a 4K TV, to be worth the extra outlay above a 1080p set, needs to be around the 80" mark for a start. If you buy a 40" display, it would be great as a PC monitor, as that's the only viewing distance that makes the resolution increase a benefit. This ties into the info in the graph above - simply put, the human eye cant resolve resolution changes such as 1080p to 4K, if you're either:
A) Sat at a typical living room distance to your TV.
B) Have a relatively small size TV.
They might look fantastic in John Lewis, in dynamic mode, with you viewing them from a couple of feet away, but you cannot replicate your living room environment in a shop - and the last thing you want is to get a shiny, expensive, state of the art TV home only for it to be an anti-climax when you find it looks no more detailed than your last 1080p TV.
Whilst the sets on display at the moment are 4K in resolution, they're essentially a stop gap until a 4K standard has been agreed. Wider colour gamuts, 10-12 bit colour etc need to be firmed up. If you absolutely must jump on the early adopter bandwagon, then so be it, but it most likely wont have the right innards to display native 4K content when it becomes available (as in actual feature films and broadcast TV shows). There's minimal chance of seeing a 4K Blu-Ray disc as movie studios have no interest in a new disc format, and they drive the industry, so what they say goes (unfortunately).
Speaking of content, the Beeb will be testing the feasibility of 4K broadcasting during the forthcoming World Cup, or at least in their studios - none of it will be broadcast to Joe public. It could turn out to be a complete ballache for them, but the Beeb are good at putting their money where their mouth is to try these things, and the World Cup has always been a good test bed for new AV tech.
The only thing that is guaranteed regarding the futureproofing of a 4K TV bought today, is HDMI 2.0 - the rest is all up in the air, and it's a big price to pay to only be able to watch some YouTube clips and a few LG & Sony demo discs IMO.
4K holds more benefits to the projector market - and us folks interested in that have yet more hurdles to overcome as the delivery system for 4K, where available, is tied into TV manufacturer's i.e. Sony's server system. Unfortunately it's a case of waiting a while, until the specifics of the 4K standard are agreed IMO.
toohuge said:
shielsy said:
this is quite interesting...
I think this diagram is very, very misleading....We have been looking at new televisions recently and you can clearly see the difference of a 4k set over that of a 1080p set even when standing closer than 9 feet.
Having said that, it is still too early to go for 4k IMO... I think we are going down the route of a Bose Videowave as it's the most wife friendly solution.
Chris
In reality the ability to discern the resolution changes as you focus and of course varies between people, not to mention that a significant % of people when questioned will "see no difference" between different resolutions becausue they simply aren't looking for or caring about it.
Saw this in Richer Sounds
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsu...
Looks like you lose the 3D though but that wouldn't bother me
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsu...
Looks like you lose the 3D though but that wouldn't bother me
A review of the 55inch version of that screen here:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue55hu6900-20140523...
They say that the screen handles motion poorly (that is, to say, only as well as any other LCD with no clever de-bluring tech) but I think they are overstating the problem a bit. Not seen it though, so I have no idea. To paraphrase Jack Sparrow it's bad 4K TV...Ah...but it IS a 4K TV...
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue55hu6900-20140523...
They say that the screen handles motion poorly (that is, to say, only as well as any other LCD with no clever de-bluring tech) but I think they are overstating the problem a bit. Not seen it though, so I have no idea. To paraphrase Jack Sparrow it's bad 4K TV...Ah...but it IS a 4K TV...
Edited by varsas on Sunday 8th June 19:13
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff