4K TV or regular LED?

[dtbach]

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.

 

[Jack_Pine]

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...................

 

[Animorph]

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

 

[hicabob]

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away and will be dropping in price over the next few years, but that's the problem with tech - whatever you buy will be outdated and less expensive by the time you figure out how to use it

 

[eytonxav]

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?

 

[ERD50]

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

 

[Animorph]

The 1080p to 2160p conversion should be pretty easy to do nicely.

 

[Jack_Pine]

Either way, you should take a look see.

 

[RE2Boys]

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!

 

[explanade]

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.

 

[photoguy]

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.

 

[dtbach]

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.

 

[samclem]

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!!

 

[Walt34]

Since we just last year replaced our remaining 19" tube TV I'm probably the wrong one to ask....

 

[ERD50]

... 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

 

[sailor]

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.

 

[Jack_Pine]

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.

 

[meekie]

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.

 

[pb4uski]

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.

 

[sailor]

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?

 

[robnplunder]

I saw an UHD demo at Fry's yesterday. The programs looked simply awesome. But I wonder what it's like when displaying 1080p programs. It is probably not whole lot better.

NetFlix has announced that it's working on supporting UHD resolution in 2014. If all their current HD programs are converted into UHD resolution, it will propel me to buy an UHD and upgrade my DSL speed to something much higher.

I also saw an LG OLED demo at Fry's. They were showing Thor on the TV. It looks better than 1080p TVs but at price tag of $9999+tax, both DW and I agreed it's not worth the money.

 

[HFWR]

I'll likely "upgrade" when my 2003-vintage Samsung DLP set dies. But I, for one, notice a LOT of difference between standard def and high(er) def. A few channels I watch, e.g. Sundance, or Encore, are not high def, and they are noticeably inferior...

I'll never spring for a $9k TV though...

 

[Ready]

I personally would not jump on the 4K bandwagon just yet, but if you really think you want one, take a look at the reviews on the Seiki sets. The 50" model is only $749.00 on Amazon, and the reviews overall are pretty good.

I also would not spend a lot of money on any TV set right now. I saw 60" 1080P Vizios going for $688.00 on Black Friday with plenty of units available online from Bestbuy, including free shipping. This is probably the most I think it makes sense to spend on a set, because technology is changing so rapidly that the days of holding on to a TV set for 20 years are over.

 

[dtbach]

I'm pretty sure my old (circa 2005) Mitsubishi can hang on for another year. I'm on my 4th light bulb but they have dropped to less $100 now so if I need another bulb, that will be an option. I'm betting when more media comes out for the 4K, the production will be ramped up and prices will come down. I think I'd pay $2500 for a 60" from what I've seen.

 

[HFWR]

I'm pretty sure my old (circa 2005) Mitsubishi can hang on for another year. I'm on my 4th light bulb but they have dropped to less $100 now so if I need another bulb, that will be an option. I'm betting when more media comes out for the 4K, the production will be ramped up and prices will come down. I think I'd pay $2500 for a 60" from what I've seen.

I don't watch much, but I'm still on bulb #1 after ten years...