4k and if its worth it

[supersix4]

So as most of you who frequent this thread maybe have seen. I was none too pleased with the Samsung UHD tv I got and would hardly it consider it an upgrade to my c8000 of a few years ago.

But... I just received the 1TB hard drive from samsung aka the video pack which is all 4k content and I will say that, that level of content IS worth the upgrade!

Its truly noticeable and you'd feel like you spent your money well if you're watching that level of content.... The problem though, nothing but the video pack is on that level yet

Bottom line its akin to having a Ferrari in a town that only sells 87/89RON when you need 93+ to get the benefits of your car.

Glad I've seen that this tv can deliver and its got real quality to shoot, but now I'm unhappy since I know what I'm missing and what could be. Basically your paying to be first or enjoy a few minor things.. My advice would still be to wait, but know that if you do make the plunge the tv's [at least my samsung, can deliver what you're paying for]

*here is a link to the video pack by the way
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-.../CY-SUC10SH/ZA

[poke smot]

8 movies for $300? No thanks. Think I'll wait awhile to see how this 4k stuff plays out.

[jh20001]

I am a big 4K fan. I have been following 4K TVs since I first saw them appearing at CES. 4K isn't worth the price currently, but when it comes down (and when TV starts streaming closer to 4K), it will destroy 1080p and replace it without a doubt.

[Wingman1977]

Right now, 4K is not worth it. Next year (holiday 2015), when 4K blu-ray movies and 4K BD players are released, then it will be a yes.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by jh20001

I am a big 4K fan. I have been following 4K TVs since I first saw them appearing at CES. 4K isn't worth the price currently, but when it comes down (and when TV starts streaming closer to 4K), it will destroy 1080p and replace it without a doubt.

Price wise it’s getting somewhere between ‘tempting’ and “mighty tempting”… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post9805927

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by poke smot

8 movies for $300? No thanks. Think I'll wait awhile to see how this 4k stuff plays out.

Came for free with my tv, didn't even have to go out of pocket and then get reimbursed, just sent away the form. But you will definitely notice it.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Price wise it’s getting somewhere between ‘tempting’ and “mighty tempting”… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post9805927

Yeah that was my only point. That if you've got the money to drop, you can definitely feel like you've gotten your monies worth if you are able to get your hands on some REAL 4k content.

Simply upgrading or stretching a budget, there isn't enough content to justify it at the moment at least to me.

Originally Posted by jh20001

I am a big 4K fan. I have been following 4K TVs since I first saw them appearing at CES. 4K isn't worth the price currently, but when it comes down (and when TV starts streaming closer to 4K), it will destroy 1080p and replace it without a doubt.

I showed two people who I had tried to an exhaustive extent to recognize the 1080p quality vs. standard deff and while that was always "yeah i guess I see it"

When they saw the 4k content from the documentaries it was a resounding WOW.

So I definitely agree if 4k content can become more mainstream it'll make an impact judging by what I've seen.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by supersix4

Yeah that was my only point. That if you've got the money to drop, you can definitely feel like you've gotten your monies worth if you are able to get your hands on some REAL 4k content.

The world is your oyster (without having to spend one night in Bangkok)….
http://gopro.com./

Explanation - http://www.fcpworks.com/4k-goes-main...-gopro-hero-4/

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Right now, 4K is not worth it. Next year (holiday 2015), when 4K blu-ray movies and 4K BD players are released, then it will be a yes.

"For 4K UHD TVs the question is will you actually be able to see a visual improvement in image sharpness and detail over a 1920x1080 HDTV? For 20/20 Vision if you have a 40 inch TV you’ll need to be watching from closer than 5.2 feet to see an improvement, a 50 inch TV closer than 6.5 feet, a 60 inch TV closer than 7.8 feet, a 70 inch TV closer than 9.1 feet, and an 80 inch TV closer than 10.4 feet." [Dr. Raymond M. Soneira
President, DisplayMate Technologies Corporation]

[bhampton]

SuperSix4,

Have you had the set calibrated at all?...

I've only seen 4K at my Best Buy... but I look at them all every time I visit. The Sony's were likely set to some type of "vibrant" mode but the other sets I saw from Sharp, and maybe Samsung,... can't exactly remember which ... they seemed to have settings way, way, way out...Things were in focus but colors were crazy and gamma must have been very low or that's how it looked.

[supersix4]

I think I'm between 7-10ft from my 65'' and I can tell you that the 4k content I've seen far exceeds 1080p and if everything looked like that it would be without question the right choice.

But having such limited content, combined with the fact that 1080p's are close for FAR less money it really is something that is up to the individual consumer.

[Auditor55]

I think I'm between 7-10ft from my 65'' and I can tell you that the 4k content I've seen far exceeds 1080p and if everything looked like that it would be without question the right choice

I find that claim somewhat suspect, giving that other experts in the display technology field, have tested it and have given a completely different testimony from yours. As far as I know, no one but you have come away with that impression. I have seen 4k displays in stores, but I don't pay much attention to store comparison because they have the display cooked up and if they want sell you 4K they're going feed the 4K displays most pristine content.
-----
"What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k.

It’s important to note that research by Bernard Lechner (former VP of RCA Laboratories) found that the average viewing distance of American TV viewers to be 9 feet. This is substantially farther than the 5.5 foot distance required to fully resolve normal-sized 4k screens. I don’t see people rearranging their living rooms to take advantage of the otherwise unnoticeable UHD resolution benefits." [http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/]

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

I find that claim somewhat suspect, giving that other experts in the display technology field, have tested it and have given a completely different testimony from yours. As far as I know, no one but you have come away with that impression. I have seen 4k displays in stores, but I don't pay much attention to store comparison because they have the display cooked up and if they want sell you 4K they're going feed the 4K displays most pristine content.
-----
"What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k.

It’s important to note that research by Bernard Lechner (former VP of RCA Laboratories) found that the average viewing distance of American TV viewers to be 9 feet. This is substantially farther than the 5.5 foot distance required to fully resolve normal-sized 4k screens. I don’t see people rearranging their living rooms to take advantage of the otherwise unnoticeable UHD resolution benefits." [http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/]

Oh darn my eyes must be also lying when I can easily tell the difference between 4K content on a 65" display standing 8-10 feet away and 1080P content.

BTW Bernard Lechner passed away 2014.

I just hope in the end we don't get soaked for 4k media costs.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by jh20001

I am a big 4K fan. I have been following 4K TVs since I first saw them appearing at CES. 4K isn't worth the price currently, but when it comes down (and when TV starts streaming closer to 4K), it will destroy 1080p and replace it without a doubt.

Really, I guess 8K will destroy 4k, 16K will destroy 8K (SMH).

Once we evolve into superman type beings, with super human vision, then 4K, 8K, 16K will matter.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Oh darn my eyes must be also lying when I can easily tell the difference between 4K content on a 65" display standing 8-10 feet away and 1080P content.

BTW Bernard Lechner passed away 2014.

I just hope in the end we don't get soaked for 4k media costs.

Your eyes or visual capabilities just might exceed the rest of us mortals

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Your eyes or visual capabilities just might exceed the rest of us mortals

4k is definitely an improvement over 1080p. I was a skeptic too until I saw the difference with my own 2 eyes. Are you telling everyone here that just because you read some articles about 4k barely being an improvement that's what you're going by? Have you not seen them in person?

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

4k is definitely an improvement over 1080p. I was a skeptic too until I saw the difference with my own 2 eyes. Are you telling everyone here that just because you read some articles about 4k barely being an improvement that's what you're going by? Have you not seen them in person?

I never said there wasn't a difference. The question is whether or not the difference is discernible do to the limits of human eye sight. Scientifically speaking, the panel has to be a certain size and the user must be seated at the appropriate distance from the panel to see the benefits of the extra resolution.

Sitting 10 feet from a 60 inch 4K set just won't cut it. That's just the facts. This has been tested by those that have forgotten more about display technology than you or I will ever know.

I have seen the 4K sets in the store, mostly in torch mode, for the unlearned.

There's more to PQ than resolution, that is why a 1080p OLED set is destroying 4K LED TV's. 4K LED is pretty much for the uninitiated of this hobby.

"For this review I compared two of the best new 4K-resolution LED LCD TVs to LG's OLED, and the outcome was never in question. The LG 55EC9300 is easily the best-performing TV you can buy today, and I'd be surprised if any future LCD surpassed it." [http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-55ec...|xaxis|728x90]

I see that as 1080p OLED vs 4K LED, which one would you want.

[Auditor55]

4K makes sense for:



4K makes no sense for:

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

I never said there wasn't a difference. The question is whether or not the difference is discernible do to the limits of human eye sight. Scientifically speaking, the panel has to be a certain size and the user must be seated at the appropriate distance from the panel to see the benefits of the extra resolution.

Sitting 10 feet from a 60 inch 4K set just won't cut it. That's just the facts. This has been tested by those that have forgotten more about display technology than you or I will ever know.

I have seen the 4K sets in the store, mostly in torch mode, for the unlearned.

There's more to PQ than resolution, that is why a 1080p OLED set is destroying 4K LED TV's. 4K LED is pretty much for the uninitiated of this hobby.

"For this review I compared two of the best new 4K-resolution LED LCD TVs to LG's OLED, and the outcome was never in question. The LG 55EC9300 is easily the best-performing TV you can buy today, and I'd be surprised if any future LCD surpassed it." [http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-55ec...|xaxis|728x90]

I see that as 1080p OLED vs 4K LED, which one would you want.

I would want 1080p OLED but soon I don't think consumers will have a choice. I still enjoy my regular 1080p set with my blu-rays. I think 4k looks nice but I can't believe they're moving up display resolution so soon. Why not give 1080p sets better contrast, gamma, and such. Resolution isn't everything.

[AudioWarrior]

Just got back from Best Buy and the most impressive TV I saw was Samsung's curved 78" 4k TV. It dwarfed the 65" hanging next to it! It was absolutely beautiful! Even my Grandmother commented how beautiful the picture was compare to the bigger 1080p sets! She's about to be 70 and she could even tell the difference in picture quality and sharpness, and she needs glasses!!! I know what I want for Christmas

The TV she disliked the most even though I never told her the brand, was the Hisense 55", even though it was a 1080p set, for some reason she said she didn't like it, and she's usually impressed by any flat panel TV, but the Hisense was really crappy!

I'm currently eyeing that Samsung TV, even though it costs 8k! I currently see a better deal, as I can buy a LG 84" for $5,200, or a 79" for $4000 off east coast TV's! January's my birthday so I know one of them will be mine!

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

I never said there wasn't a difference. The question is whether or not the difference is discernible do to the limits of human eye sight. Scientifically speaking, the panel has to be a certain size and the user must be seated at the appropriate distance from the panel to see the benefits of the extra resolution.

Sitting 10 feet from a 60 inch 4K set just won't cut it. That's just the facts. This has been tested by those that have forgotten more about display technology than you or I will ever know.

I have seen the 4K sets in the store, mostly in torch mode, for the unlearned.

There's more to PQ than resolution, that is why a 1080p OLED set is destroying 4K LED TV's. 4K LED is pretty much for the uninitiated of this hobby.

"For this review I compared two of the best new 4K-resolution LED LCD TVs to LG's OLED, and the outcome was never in question. The LG 55EC9300 is easily the best-performing TV you can buy today, and I'd be surprised if any future LCD surpassed it." [http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-55ec...|xaxis|728x90]

I see that as 1080p OLED vs 4K LED, which one would you want.

Gee-Whizz... Are you still pushing your pseudo science?

Please, don't state opinion as fact. If you are being scientific, please quote a peer reviewed paper from a respected journal.