Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
4K TV or regular LED?
Old 10-08-2013, 03:09 PM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
dtbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Madison
Posts: 753
4K TV or regular LED?

Thinking about getting a TV next year (the old one is holding together with duct tape, chewing gum, etc). Not sure that I want a 3D as that may be a fad, but the 4K picture intrigues me.

Is it worth 2-3 X the price? Can you actually tell the difference as 1080 is pretty darn fine.

And I suppose the 4K will start dropping in price just as I buy one.
__________________

__________________
Wild Bill shoulda taken more out of his IRA when he could have. . . .
dtbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-08-2013, 03:25 PM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
Jack_Pine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 834
You should go look at a Samsung 4k (like the 85"). It is stunning. I have had more than one person say it is almost too clear/crisp.

I think I could get used to it pretty quickly...................
__________________

__________________
The Constitution. It's not just a good idea...it's the law.
Jack_Pine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:42 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,863
If you are sitting far enough away 4k shouldn't look much better than 1080p. Its main value is in allowing a bigger picture closer to you. Certainly since they are just being introduced the cost will be higher than next year or after. And there is a new (HDMI?) standard connector coming out that I don't think the initial sets have. And I think even the color space is being debated. Typical early adopter hazards. Might be much better to wait a year, not that I necessarily would...

Here's a review:

Samsung UN85S9AF 85" 4K UHD LED Display - Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:44 PM   #4
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: santa cruz
Posts: 10
Very minimal content is available for 4K but the picture is definitely stunning. Manufacturers are already showing "8k" at the equipment shows which has 4x the pixels of 4K ! The new oled TV's (currently $8000 or so) blow lcd's away and will be dropping in price over the next few years, but that's the problem with tech - whatever you buy will be outdated and less expensive by the time you figure out how to use it
__________________
hicabob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 04:23 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by hicabob View Post
Very minimal content is available for 4K but the picture is definitely stunning.
That is what I thought, so why pay a premium now given limited content?
__________________
Doing things today that others won't, to do things tomorrow that others can't. Of course I'm referring to workouts, not robbing banks.
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 04:39 PM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
That is what I thought, so why pay a premium now given limited content?
Right. I haven't followed this, only heard of them, but I'm not aware of any content that high. Looking at wiki, it looks like only cameras, and computer cards - so that would be creating your own content. Pretty sure you can't get any discs of your latest movies, if they were even shot in that high a rez.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 05:17 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,863
The 1080p to 2160p conversion should be pretty easy to do nicely.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 05:41 PM   #8
Full time employment: Posting here.
Jack_Pine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 834
Either way, you should take a look see.
__________________
The Constitution. It's not just a good idea...it's the law.
Jack_Pine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 05:57 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,041
As a person who never felt the need for cable Tv and only recently moved up to 720, you gotta be kidding. But I'm not wired that way (still buy used cars even though could easily afford new, but don't like the feeling of being ripped off. BTW, have yet to spend $20K on a car (just bought a 2011 minivan with 10K miles for under $17K)

Seriously, I'd wait a another year or two and let the technology mature before spending serious money. Unless that is your hobby/passion, then go for it!
__________________
RE2Boys is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 05:59 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,425
Studios have masters that they've been scanning the past decade at 4k. Even 50-year old films, if in good condition, can be rendered well in 4K formats.

But the question is, will they release 4K content at reasonable prices?

Blu-Ray hasn't reached the sales volumes of DVDs (and they never may). Yet all the advertising of movies seem to be for Blu-Rays, which release at $30-40 for new video releases. There are a lot of older titles for under $10 and even $5 now.

If the broadband infrastructure was better, there would be more push for "good enough" 1080p and even 4K streaming or download formats.

But more unlikely would be 4K broadcasts, like sporting events on channels broadcasting in 4K. The conversion from analog to ATSC, which only supports up to 1080i broadcasts, was a long and arduous process. TV stations and mobile fighting for spectrum and so on.

To support higher resolution formats, all existing TVs would have to be replaced, as well as the production chain at local and network TV facilities. Maybe with better codecs than MPEG2, they can broadcast higher resolution with the current bandwidth.

But I know of no effort to come up with new broadcast formats.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 08:07 PM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtbach View Post
Is it worth 2-3 X the price? Can you actually tell the difference as 1080 is pretty darn fine.
The fry's by my house has a huge 4k TV running Avatar and various demo's and I see it every time I go there. Surprisingly the picture actually looks WORSE to me than my 1080P plasma. Avatar, while very sharp, just looks like some cheap made for TV movie.

Not entirely sure about the science behind it but I suspect it's similar issues to people who didn't like the high frame rate version of The Hobbit.

I'd definitely check one out in person, preferably at a high end store where they can set it up properly.

Another thing to consider is that you'll be paying the early adopter price.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 10:15 PM   #12
Full time employment: Posting here.
dtbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Madison
Posts: 753
Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty sure I will stick with the standard 1080 for the next TV. Probably just 2D also as I don't like the idea of having to wear glasses all the time watching TV.

The Smart TV's seem pretty neat although I've heard they are not real fast. Might wait a bit to see if high processors are put in before shelling out the money.
__________________
Wild Bill shoulda taken more out of his IRA when he could have. . . .
dtbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:17 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by RE2Boys View Post
As a person who never felt the need for cable Tv and only recently moved up to 720, you gotta be kidding.
+1.
First, regarding "TV" itself: I can barely stand to watch most of the stuff cranked out by that industry, it will not be improved if it comes into my home in higher definition. Junk is junk.
Second: Regardless whether the difference between 4K and 1080 is discernible in a typical home, is screen resolution what makes movie or shows enjoyable? Content is, to me, so much more important than pixels. "Singing in the Rain" on a 19" B&W TV beats "Lives of Spoiled Real Rich Kids" 4K.

On a less curmudgeonly note: At least wait before going down the "more pixel path. And 3D is dead.

Nobody wants to buy their entire movie library for a fourth time: I thought we'd agreed, as a protest and out of common sense, to ignore whatever comes after Blu-Ray!!
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 05:54 AM   #14
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,579
Since we just last year replaced our remaining 19" tube TV I'm probably the wrong one to ask....
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 08:07 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtbach View Post
... Probably just 2D also as I don't like the idea of having to wear glasses all the time watching TV. ...
The glasses are only used for watching 3D content, and that is mostly only on a few select BluRay discs. Our TV is 3D, and I've never used the glasses.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 08:48 AM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
sailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta suburbs
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtbach View Post
The Smart TV's seem pretty neat although I've heard they are not real fast. Might wait a bit to see if high processors are put in before shelling out the money.
I would skip smart TV and instead use $35 Chromecast or $50 Roku or $99 Apple TV.
That way you are not locked into whatever slow proprietary stuff which came with the TV and can inexpensively upgrade at will.
__________________
sailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 08:57 AM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
Jack_Pine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 834
Tv's are probably one of the only things I pay extra for when I have to replace current set.

I like to watch movies (bigger the better) sports and nature shows. I know for the "I never watch TV crowd" this does not make sense, but to each their own.

My 73" DLP is aging, so may donate that to a family member and do the upgrade this or next year. Smart TV's will be on the list to look at.
__________________
The Constitution. It's not just a good idea...it's the law.
Jack_Pine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 03:08 PM   #18
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
I would skip smart TV and instead use $35 Chromecast or $50 Roku or $99 Apple TV.
That way you are not locked into whatever slow proprietary stuff which came with the TV and can inexpensively upgrade at will.
I would HIGHLY agree with sailor here. The interfaces for Roku and appleTV are fast, easy and fun to use, where I don't even bother with changing most menus on my TV since it's so confusing. I love our roku in the bedroom, although we went with appleTV in the living room for the extra features since we have a lot of apple products in the house.
__________________
Office Space
Bob Porter: Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
Peter Gibbons: I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
meekie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 05:54 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by meekie

I would HIGHLY agree with sailor here. The interfaces for Roku and appleTV are fast, easy and fun to use, where I don't even bother with changing most menus on my TV since it's so confusing. I love our roku in the bedroom, although we went with appleTV in the living room for the extra features since we have a lot of apple products in the house.
I have Chromecast and love it. I just wish that I could cast Amazon Prime videos from my Kindle Fire.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 11:08 AM   #20
Full time employment: Posting here.
sailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta suburbs
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I have Chromecast and love it. I just wish that I could cast Amazon Prime videos from my Kindle Fire.
Yeah, I don't think it would work from Fire - have you tried casting it from Chrome browser on a PC?
__________________

__________________
sailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.