Torn on whether to go 4K

[six wheels]

PH!

I'm after input please on 2x TV options including whether to go for 4K now or save some money and stick with 1080 with a budget of £1000 for 55".

Our faithfull 5 year old Sony is up for replacement with another Sony (has to be, looking to keep the same Bluray, amp etc.) so I'm looking at:
KD55X8509C £1000 4K
or
KDL55W755C £750 and 1080.

I'll need another 4-5 years out of this TV too so is now the time to go 4K? Sky are doing something, Netflix has a bit out but I imagine those two would be an extra £20pm for not a lot of content. Plus then replacement blueray and cables (is there a new cable standard too?) puts a lot on.

Conversely, the cheaper TV enables me to increase the sound budget. Or is there a better 55" or bigger Sony 1080 TV I should look at?

It's not like all Sky channels are HD now anyway so how fast would, could 4K take over?!

I think I've confused myself...

[anonymous-user]

It's approaching the point where 4K (UHD to give it the official term - Sony just like to be different), is a viable prospect. There are some caveats though when it comes to future proofing (most of the other threads have already touched on this):

• To be future proof, the TV needs to have HDR support and support a wider colour gamut. UHD is not simply a resolution increase, it's an entirely different standard and many of the TV's already available (at the lower end of the market) are simply Rec.709 colour space displays with increased resolution. The key things to check for are:

- HDMI 2.0a inputs. These will allow UHD at higher frame rates.
- HDCP 2.2 support. Again this relates to the UHD standard for content but more so from a data encryption perspective.

• Streaming services. Whilst UHD Blu-Ray will be here from January onwards, the move to streaming content via Netflix and Amazon Prime means most UHD content will be streamed. Fibre optic internet is advisable as the bandwidth required is significant compared to HD content.

• Screen size. A 'small' display, say <50" in a regular living room environment with an average viewing distance will net very little perceivable improvement in resolution. This is where UHD's wider colour space and HDR start to make sense as the picture will be far more punchy, accurate, and just dig deeper at both ends of the colour spectrum i.e. brighter whites and much deeper blacks. For maximum impact and to appreciate the resolution benefits, the bigger the display the better (I wont post that graph that's been doing the rounds already, it'll start a kerfuffle about visual acuity ).

It's been a long time coming, but we're quite close to UHD being worth the outlay, with a degree of knowing that what you're buying isn't a moving target in terms of standards. Granted, the broadcast standard for UHD is yet to be firmed up, but the points above are the features that are built in to ensure the agreed standard sits within the realms of what the technology can muster.

[six wheels]

fuelracer496 said:

Very helpful stuff.

Thank you for that, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Regards the HDR support and and higher framerate, the specs of this particular TV - the KD55X8509C - don't mention either HDMI 2.0a nor HDR:
https://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-spec...

Sorry if this is as obvious as it feels but does that mean it doesn't support HDMI 2.0a or HDR? I mean it's not one of those situations where people always miss the "a" from HDMI 2.0a or never include HDR specifically because of something obvious?


Thanks again, Steve.

[anonymous-user]

six wheels said:

Thank you for that, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Regards the HDR support and and higher framerate, the specs of this particular TV - the KD55X8509C - don't mention either HDMI 2.0a nor HDR:
https://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-spec...

Sorry if this is as obvious as it feels but does that mean it doesn't support HDMI 2.0a or HDR? I mean it's not one of those situations where people always miss the "a" from HDMI 2.0a or never include HDR specifically because of something obvious?


Thanks again, Steve.

The spec sheet would indicate it doesn't support HDMI 2.0a, but it does support 2.0 (verified by a quick look around), it does have HDCP 2.2 support though.

At this price point, it's not surprising regarding the lack of 2.0a (also, I believe it was released early this year, before 2.0a was launched IIRC - July ish). When you consider that Samsung's SUHD displays that are by no means cheap, didn't come with HDMI 2.0a, but are being updated via a firmware change - the underlying issue is that the lower tier UHD displays (say <£2k) are predominantly 4K resolution but don't have the future-proofing details built in.