'Cheap' (sub £800 4K TV's)

[Shamu]

Hi all, have been keeping an eye on 4k prices for the last 12 months, and they are certainly dropping considerably, to the point now that some from the better known manufacturers are reaching attainable prices.

Most of the offerings seem to be from LG, and excluding the Currys Exclusive model, I've found these two-just wanted peoples opinion's really?

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/televi...

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/televi...

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/televi...

I've left the 40'' ones out as I cant see the point in buying a 4k resolution TV for a smaller screen size!

[RAClNG SNAKE]

I am looking for a TV up to 50" and have considered 4K/UHD but most people think that it will be a long time until there is enough 4k content to justify it. Also being limited to 50" means that it is debatable whether or not I will see any difference sitting 10-12' away from it. Is upscaling really going to make a difference in the meantime?

[JulianHJ]

A poster who seemed to know his stuff (can't recall who) said on a previous thread that to get the benefit of 4K at average viewing distances (assuming the content is available) you'd need a set in the region of 84". It's also been mentioned that the format standards have yet to be finalised, so you could end up with the 'HD-DVD' equivalent also-ran.

[JustinP1]

JulianHJ said:

A poster who seemed to know his stuff (can't recall who) said on a previous thread that to get the benefit of 4K at average viewing distances (assuming the content is available) you'd need a set in the region of 84". It's also been mentioned that the format standards have yet to be finalised, so you could end up with the 'HD-DVD' equivalent also-ran.

Ahh, the viewing distance legend!

It is a truism, but in the real world the results are not as skewed.

I have a 65 inch 4K TV. My living room is something like 4.5m by 7m.

If I were to do a group test with PHers on 4K content compared to HD, if anyone could not tell the difference in any normal viewing position I'd seriously ask if they needed glasses.

The Samsung I have is HDMI 2.0 and has a breakout box which is upgradable.

My advice would be if you are buying a large screen, you'd be foolish to turn down 4K. If nothing else, you'd seriously restrict the number of panels you can consider. Upscaling *does* make a difference too.

My last piece of advice, is a cheap 4K TV is pointless unless you are simply displaying static images. The low processing rate of a few of the panels, in particular the Samsung linked in the OP make them unwatchable IMHO.

There's an in-store demo where there is a confetti machine. The 200Hz Samsung looked like a jumble of inch wide squares flashing around the screen. It really was worse than a comparable HD panel.

Above all else, this is not something you can judge on a mythical graph which tells you in theory what you can and can't see, and a Hz processing rate. Go to a decent sized Currys and have a look for yourself.

[RAClNG SNAKE]

So is 4k worth it on the 49" LG?

[Roberty]

Shamu said:

Hi all, have been keeping an eye on 4k prices for the last 12 months, and they are certainly dropping considerably.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/televi...

I just bought the 49 inch LG, I'm no expert on these systems but for £650 it is a great deal and an awesome TV.

Curry's had one on display, no doubt optimised with some sort of special UHD content on a loop, looked fantastic and I did wonder what it would be like at home with Sky HD, DVD''s and Blu Rays.

The picture is amazing, it replaces a 42 inch Phillips and SD and HD content is so much sharper, contrast is better and the colours are excellent.

Only got it yesterday so still very early days but last night I watched Rise of the planet of the apes on blu ray and the picture quality was phenomenal.

On the old Phillips, HD content, Blu Rays or Sky HD channels were clearly better than SD content but not so much better to make me pay the premium for Blu Rays over DVD's.

Luckily I did get a some Blu Rays for Christmas as the new TV certainly makes far more of them than the old 1080p HD TV managed. Sky HD channels also look amazing.

Have been doing my post purchase 4k research on whether I need a special Blu Ray player to go with it or not, still none the wiser!

[JustinP1]

Roberty said:

Have been doing my post purchase 4k research on whether I need a special Blu Ray player to go with it or not, still none the wiser!

No, your 'normal' blu-ray player is totally fine. It's the screen that's doing the upscaling.

I've said before when this subject has come up about '...but there's no 4K content yet...'

A good 4K panel is worth getting for the upscaling. That's a benefit you'll see straight away.

Treat the fact that 4K content will be coming out as a free upgrade when that time comes.

[GI Jnr]

Saw for the first time a 4k LG 60" that my brother brought playing a blu ray the other day. The upscaled difference is obvious IMO, noticeably better/sharper. Though I did see some pretty severe problems with the TV keeping up when the action hotted up on screen.

So I would definitely look for a 4k but maybe spend a little more rather than opt for the 'cheapest' 4k panels...

IMHO of course.

Tuan

[RAClNG SNAKE]

Based on this

http://www.rtings.com/info/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080...


I bought this 1080p at £529 with a 5 year guarantee and free delivery.

http://www.whathifi.com/samsung/ue48h6400/review

Edited by RAClNG SNAKE on Tuesday 30th December 21:59

[JustinP1]

GI Jnr said:

Saw for the first time a 4k LG 60" that my brother brought playing a blu ray the other day. The upscaled difference is obvious IMO, noticeably better/sharper. Though I did see some pretty severe problems with the TV keeping up when the action hotted up on screen.

So I would definitely look for a 4k but maybe spend a little more rather than opt for the 'cheapest' 4k panels...

IMHO of course.

Tuan

Exactly.

There are some panels out there that are coming in at an unbelievable price point. However, unless you are watching static images, in the real world, you are likely to be disappointed.

The LED panels themselves do inherently come with the downfall that they don't represent natural movement well, and do so with either subtle, or overblown processing.

That's the difference between something like football looking realistic and solid and you seeing the football as two semi-circles juddering across the screen.

In that respect, in the real world a top 1080P panel will outperform a cheap 4K panel considerably.

[sjn2004]

JustinP1 said:

GI Jnr said:

Saw for the first time a 4k LG 60" that my brother brought playing a blu ray the other day. The upscaled difference is obvious IMO, noticeably better/sharper. Though I did see some pretty severe problems with the TV keeping up when the action hotted up on screen.

So I would definitely look for a 4k but maybe spend a little more rather than opt for the 'cheapest' 4k panels...

IMHO of course.

Tuan

Exactly.

There are some panels out there that are coming in at an unbelievable price point. However, unless you are watching static images, in the real world, you are likely to be disappointed.

The LED panels themselves do inherently come with the downfall that they don't represent natural movement well, and do so with either subtle, or overblown processing.

That's the difference between something like football looking realistic and solid and you seeing the football as two semi-circles juddering across the screen.

In that respect, in the real world a top 1080P panel will outperform a cheap 4K panel considerably.

I bought the LG 42 inch 4k set, £480 on other at Costco, was £560 at Curry's. Its not 3D.

Fantastic picture, films like Prometheus really stood out. I only realised how good it was when I went back a week later to buy a soundbar and the 1080i sets all looked blocky by comparison(think Minecraft).All the current bigger sets are now 4K bar the budget versions.

There's nothing fancy about 4k, the pixel density isn't that great compared to a phone/tablet.

This time next year every set bar Bush/Amstrad will be 4k.

If folks hadn't noticed, UHD is x2 the number of h/v pixels than 1080. Upscaling is far easier when its a simple doubling of pixels.

Just to add, the main problem I found with these LG screens is the ridiculous numbers of parameters for adjusting the picture, probably around 40 factors.

The LG's also have a Sat HD tuner, ARC, HDMI, optical output plus another stack of bells and whistles.

[chrissull]

Just bought the LG 42" 4k too. Getting delivered on Friday. Looking forward to it.

[camelot1971]

sjn2004 said:

If folks hadn't noticed, UHD is x2 the number of h/v pixels than 1080. Upscaling is far easier when its a simple doubling of pixels.

You mean x4 in total (as you are doubling the width and height).

The big issue I have with 4k is watching SD content from Sky/Virgin. Its pretty ropy on a 1080p set and a lot worse on a 4k one, no matter how good the panel. Until the content is there I would say hold off to be honest.

I do have a 28" 4k PC monitor for gaming though, which is excellent. As you sit so close to the screen you really can appreciate the difference when playing games in 4k, however SD youtube videos look absolute rubbish!

[a4cabrio]

Rather than start a new thread asking for 4K info I thought I'd just join this one if that's ok

I'm not that savvy on what's good and what to avoid so I'm hoping someone can tell me if this tv in the link below is a good tv, any downsides to it?? I do stick to Sony when buying TV's so don't want to move away from that brand.


http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-kd49x8505-led...

[a4cabrio]

Rather than start a new thread asking for 4K info I thought I'd just join this one if that's ok

I'm not that savvy on what's good and what to avoid so I'm hoping someone can tell me if this tv in the link below is a good tv, any downsides to it?? I do stick to Sony when buying TV's so don't want to move away from that brand.


http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-kd49x8505-led...

[sjn2004]

camelot1971 said:

sjn2004 said:

If folks hadn't noticed, UHD is x2 the number of h/v pixels than 1080. Upscaling is far easier when its a simple doubling of pixels.

You mean x4 in total (as you are doubling the width and height).

The big issue I have with 4k is watching SD content from Sky/Virgin. Its pretty ropy on a 1080p set and a lot worse on a 4k one, no matter how good the panel. Until the content is there I would say hold off to be honest.

I do have a 28" 4k PC monitor for gaming though, which is excellent. As you sit so close to the screen you really can appreciate the difference when playing games in 4k, however SD youtube videos look absolute rubbish!

I know what you mean, I upgraded to Sky HD a few days after getting the set. The ticker on Skynews was particulary awful in SD.

[audi321]

I'm dying to find out what my Gopro 4 black footage is like at 4k 30fps but I've not got a 4k screen to view it on. Given that they're getting cheaper now does anyone know what the cheapest 40" plus tv is? I might just have to buy one just to see it! It can go in the conservatory or somewhere if I don't keep it for the living room.

[sjn2004]

audi321 said:

I'm dying to find out what my Gopro 4 black footage is like at 4k 30fps but I've not got a 4k screen to view it on. Given that they're getting cheaper now does anyone know what the cheapest 40" plus tv is? I might just have to buy one just to see it! It can go in the conservatory or somewhere if I don't keep it for the living room.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/search-keywords/301_3002_30002_xx_xx/4k%2Bultra%2Bhd%2Btv/1_20/price-asc/xx-criteria.html

Prices in freefall it seems, down to £449 for a 40inch LG. Samsung/Panasonic down to 599 (3D also).
Asda had something called a Seiki at 399 but not sure about quality. Guess better sticking with know brands.

[AshD]

a4cabrio said:

Rather than start a new thread asking for 4K info I thought I'd just join this one if that's ok

I'm not that savvy on what's good and what to avoid so I'm hoping someone can tell me if this tv in the link below is a good tv, any downsides to it?? I do stick to Sony when buying TV's so don't want to move away from that brand.


http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-kd49x8505-led...

Hi a4cabrio

I just bought the same TV (got it from a Sony Centre rather than JL - went in store to JL and had to queue to speak to someone to find out if they had in stock - whilst queuing i remebered there was a Sony Centre in the same shopping arcade and phoned them to see if they had - they did at the same price as JL , same 5yr warranty, but with a free sound bar too - so i left the queue and went there instead)

I did do some research and though its not the top of the range Sony 4K (different panel) its pretty good. The only criticisms i saw were the menus are a bit hard to navigate and the blacks are quite as good as on the higher spec models. I have to day im very very pleased with it - compared to my 8yr old Sony it replaced. It saw my Synology NAS drive immediately and could stream films from it straight away, no config etc.

Obviously i'm biased as Ive bought one - but highly recommend it.

[gtidriver]

Ive just bought the £799 lg 55" 4K from curry,its very good a lot better than my 5yr old led samsung led. Thought id never use smart functions,I've never used iplayer so much.