4K \ UHD New TV question

[T1berious]

Hi,

I'm getting ready to replace a TV and thought "hold on, what about 4K \ UHD?"

I then had the following arguments with myself, but there's so little content! - there will be.

No broadcasters currently support it and we don't have Sky! I'm sure the Broadcasters are gearing up their 4k trials as we speak, hell Japan is getting ready to broadcast the Olympics in 8K!

And so on and so on.

I just thought I'd ask here, is it daft to jump on the 4K \ UHD bandwagon so early when only Netflix is putting out content?

My initial thought was to replace the 2nd TV with a HD \ 3D unit with good lag response times to put a console in the den at some point but the 4K question popped up.

Just wondered if anyone else has recently faced this conundrum and hear there thoughts.

Cheers,

T1b

[pushthebutton]

I'll be replacing my TV shortly. It's mostly because I've decided that it can never be too big. I got nicely caught out with the whole HD Ready 720p product line and so I'm going to hold fire in anticipation of similar '4K Ready' sets.

I'm going to buy a bigger TV, but it'll be one of better value Samsung 1080p Smart TVs which get good reviews. I'll keep it until 4K becomes more established and then I'll look to upgrade.

[T1berious]

yeah,

I remember getting stung by laser disc while DVD was still in its infancy but waited until the audio format was sorted out before jumping and again waited a bit with Blu Ray until that war had sorted itself out.

The problem(?) at this point is if you read up on it, Cinemas are native 4K (might have read that wrong) but for TV's it isn't actually 4K which is why the UHD moniker is being bandied about. Closer to 3.8k?

but the TV's are now reaching sensible (well almost) price points (<1.8k - 2.5k for a decent one).

I'm guessing the ramp up in picture quality will mean either a BLu Ray rebrand or is there enough storage left to work as it exists?

Anyone know?

Cheers T1b

[probedb]

For 4K I'd wait and see what happens with OLED, I'd far rather have proper blacks and better colours than a step up in resolution. Watching TV in a darkened room where the black areas aren't glowing slightly....even on my 2012 Panny plasma, would be nice

[eybic]

Wasn't 3D the "next big thing" a few years ago? That doesn't seem to have taken off at all imo.

[T1berious]

Just looked at the "Blu Ray" site and an announcement was made that 4k support for BD (Players and Media) is ear marked for Q4 2015.

Well, that puts paid to that. you'll be looking at Q1 \ Q2 2016 to see any decent content on Blu Ray 4K

I think (gazing into the crystal ball) it will be a niche product like Laser Disc was way back in the day, unless there's an explosion of 4K content broadcast. I think it will HD for the mainstream.

IMHO

[Super Slo Mo]

eybic said:

Wasn't 3D the "next big thing" a few years ago? That doesn't seem to have taken off at all imo.

3D's been and gone, more or less. There's no broadcast stuff being output on 3D any more, but it was always going to be a flash in the pan, in my view, and I held that opinion from the start.

4K though looks as though it will be the next logical step from HD, although we're starting to enter the realm of diminishing returns regarding being able to perceive the difference in picture quality, without having your room utterly dominated by the TV.

I saw an 8K (or it might have been 12 or 16K) demonstration in Sochi during the Olympics, with (I think) 32 channel surround sound. They had a single camera on the figure skating. To be honest, it was a bit underwhelming. Historically, the step from PAL/SD to HD was dramatic, and very noticeable, the step from HD to 4K less so, but this was the step from HD to 8 (or 12 or 16), but there was no 'wow' about it, it looked pretty real, but that was about it. Obviously when a proper show or film is put together, with arty shots and beautiful lighting, no doubt it will look amazing, but I felt it was a bit wasted on figure skating.

Anyway, to answer the OP, it depends on the size of the screen you're intending buying. If it's 70-80 inches or something massive like that, then it's probably worth going to 4K and waiting for the content to catch up. If it's 40-50 inches, and you're more than 6 feet away from it, I'd be inclined to save my money and stick to HD, as you're not going to get the most benefit out of 4K.

[T1berious]

A picture paints a thousand words.



And that's a 55!

[98elise]

pushthebutton said:

I'll be replacing my TV shortly. It's mostly because I've decided that it can never be too big. I got nicely caught out with the whole HD Ready 720p product line and so I'm going to hold fire in anticipation of similar '4K Ready' sets.

I'm going to buy a bigger TV, but it'll be one of better value Samsung 1080p Smart TVs which get good reviews. I'll keep it until 4K becomes more established and then I'll look to upgrade.

Thats what I did. Looking at a samsung 4k vs 1080 from our normal viewing distance and we couldn't see the difference on a 55inch TV. We bought a 60inch 1080p for less than the cost of the 55inch 4k. We could have got a lesser model 60inch for under a grand!

I'll pay extra for a a bigger screen, but not for more dots in the same size TV.

[Don Veloci]

Pretty much a dilemma I'm in at the moment. Getting the ever irresistible itch that needs scratching regarding replacing an old 32" 1080i LCD with something much bigger and better.

I am in no way interested in 3D and there are some very good quality 1080p units at ever decreasing price offers but the quiet arrival of 4K has thrown me a bit.

When I finally make the jump I don't want to be sitting there even as early a 2016/17 thinking what if with the specification/resolution.

[FlossyThePig]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/11/breaking_f...

[Wadeski]

The last of the line plasmas still have a much better picture than the UHD-ready LEDs on the market, right up into silly money.

Until OLED UHD comes down to reasonable money in a few years time, I'd hold off.

[hairyben]

Wadeski said:

The last of the line plasmas still have a much better picture than the UHD-ready LEDs on the market, right up into silly money.

Until OLED UHD comes down to reasonable money in a few years time, I'd hold off.

I've never seen a LCD that betters a mid range plasma. honestly don't know what I'd do if mine went tits in the near future.

As for 4k is it worth it for the 55-60 range? While I love the HD & have loads of bluray discs it's not like playing DVD's on my 50" 1080 is something that antagonises me, as TV size is limited for the vast majority by practical/aesthetic concerns I struggle to see where the market is. Add to that the number of shodilly finished HD discs that hardly justify the cost of buying over DVD, having a set with 4k potential doesn't really excite me..

[TheInternet]

Super Slo Mo said:

4K though looks as though it will be the next logical step from HD, although we're starting to enter the realm of diminishing returns regarding being able to perceive the difference in picture quality, without having your room utterly dominated by the TV.

This is an important bit.

[strudel]

I see that chart a lot, but I'm never entirely convinced by it. Where's the evidence for it? Even wikipedia seems to disagree with itself.

[TheInternet]

Based on capabilities of the human eye. You can roughly test it yourself by switching between the same source in SD and HD, then adjusting your viewing distance.

[Super Slo Mo]

It's dependent to some extent on your own capabilities, and how attuned your eyes are. For an engineer who spends all day looking at high quality images, they will spot differences between resolutions a lot earlier than a lay person who doesn't know what they're looking for.
Your eye's capabilites are trainable, much like any other skill.

[FlossyThePig]

strudel said:

I see that chart a lot, but I'm never entirely convinced by it. Where's the evidence for it? Even wikipedia seems to disagree with itself.

I had a look at the new 27" iMac 5K a few days ago. It was at about 6" when I could discern individual pixels, maybe other people have higher acuity than me.

[hairyben]

Super Slo Mo said:

It's dependent to some extent on your own capabilities, and how attuned your eyes are. For an engineer who spends all day looking at high quality images, they will spot differences between resolutions a lot earlier than a lay person who doesn't know what they're looking for.
Your eye's capabilites are trainable, much like any other skill.

^This the charts pretty misleading as it can only reflect an average or median.

And thats without people who should have the potential see a difference but don't because they don't care about it, they want the telly big in the same way some don't care whether they have N/A or FI or TDI tractor fueled so long as it shoots forward when you floor it.

[JustinP1]

hairyben said:

Wadeski said:

The last of the line plasmas still have a much better picture than the UHD-ready LEDs on the market, right up into silly money.

Until OLED UHD comes down to reasonable money in a few years time, I'd hold off.

I've never seen a LCD that betters a mid range plasma. honestly don't know what I'd do if mine went tits in the near future.

I thought the same. Our Very good plasma died, and in repair, Currys broke it and then started negotiating how much money back they'd give us. My argument was that plasma was inherently superior.

That said, I'd not looked at a TV for a few years.

We ended up with the 65 inch Samsung UHD curved.

Is it good? In my cinema room I have what was at the time the top of the range 63 inch Samsung plasma. I can no longer watch it as it is so inferior.

I kid you not. The blacks on the UHD LED are superb, and the motion tracking also superb. The picture is easily sharper, and the colours are better. Better than the plasma in the other room on all counts.

I was very surprised. I've got £30k of AV gear. I'm a bit of a fanatic, and very particular. So, I don't think any plasma fan would be disappointed with this TV.