Which buying decision would you recommend? - Blu-ray Forum

ADWyatt · 08-24-2014, 06:41 PM

My now-old 58" Panasonic 3D plasma still works great, but present and near-future technology is leaving it behind in terms of display quality. I would like to upgrade either this year or as late as December 2015, but this isn't such an easy thing to do.

It seems as if for television this is truly the best of times and the worst of times. While 1080p sets have never been better, 4k programming will finally start to emerge at the end of 2015 with DirecTV offering more than 4k pay-per-view. And it may be reasonable to assume that 4k Blu-ray players will start to make their appearance. And then, of course, there is 4k OLED, which at the end of next year might almost be affordable.

Here is what I'd love to have: For some odd reason I'm a big fan of the soap opera image. I don't know why, but there it is. My Panny can't display it, so I'd like to have a TV that can. Naturally, I also love 4k quality, and I really would like to have active-shutter 3D, or at the least a passive-shutter 3D image that could equal an active-shutter 4k 3D upscaled picture.

Right now there are two possible TV purchases I'm looking into, and either one could be a bad misstep. Your opinion and advice could save me a lot of money and heartache by showing me buying strategies that I'm not considering. Here are my choices right now...

1. The Sharp Aquos 60" 1080p set that shows images somewhat higher than 1080p, as the company claims that it has a million more pixels than a standard 1080p set. This is currently a Best Buy exclusive that until recently was on sale for $1,699 USD. This set definitely has the soap opera image in 240 Hz that I'd like, and also uses active-shutter 3D. However, this isn't a 4k TV, and I have yet to read in-depth customer reviews on just how good this set is. I'm thinking it may be possible that when this set goes on sale again before the end of the year that I might keep it for three years, and then buy into 4k OLED, when the technology is more affordable and refined. The down side is that my contract with DISH will be up in November 2015, and by then DirecTV may have available one or more 4k channels.

2. Wait to buy until December 1, 2015, with the expectation that a 65" 4k OLED set will street in the U.S. for about $5,000. That would be passive-shutter 3D, and I'm not sure if such a set would give me the soap opera look, but it seems to me that 4k OLED would be the last word in picture quality for many years to come. I've never seen an OLED display, to be perfectly honest, and I can only assume that from the images I've seen on the internet, that this will be noticeably superior to LED. (By the way, I'm also fully aware that Panasonic is going to be releasing the 65" AX900 4k LED TV later this year, and the specs are all my heart would desire, but Panasonic seems to have trouble making a good LED model, or so I've read. But if this is a good set, it might be a more affordable alternative to OLED.)

I have no doubt that there are many facts and considerations that I'm not taking into account for a purchase decision, and so I will thank everyone in advance who would like to offer his or her advice.

ADWyatt · 08-27-2014, 04:13 PM

I'm going to go ahead and answer my question myself, partly because I am getting zero response from any of the members here, and partly because I can now see the obvious purchasing strategy for my situation. I should have known what to do all along, and I'm sort of embarrassed that I didn't see it as plain as day.

When I am contractually able to join DirecTV by about November 2015, they will already have PPV 4k movies, and will shortly have one or more 4k channels up-and-running. That's the time to purchase a new 4K TV, and not before. The 2015 sets will be more refined and somewhat lower in cost. Almost certainly I will not have the budget for an OLED TV, as I believe a 65" set will probably cost at least $7,000. However, LED sets are really quite good already, and should be even better by the end of next year.

So for now my Panny plasma will do just fine. It's not 4k, and technology has passed it by, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth from it.

Thanks, everyone, for all your replies, such as they were.

Suntory_Times · 08-28-2014, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

I'm going to go ahead and answer my question myself, partly because I am getting zero response from any of the members here, and partly because I can now see the obvious purchasing strategy for my situation. I should have known what to do all along, and I'm sort of embarrassed that I didn't see it as plain as day.

When I am contractually able to join DirecTV by about November 2015, they will already have PPV 4k movies, and will shortly have one or more 4k channels up-and-running. That's the time to purchase a new 4K TV, and not before. The 2015 sets will be more refined and somewhat lower in cost. Almost certainly I will not have the budget for an OLED TV, as I believe a 65" set will probably cost at least $7,000. However, LED sets are really quite good already, and should be even better by the end of next year.

So for now my Panny plasma will do just fine. It's not 4k, and technology has passed it by, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth from it.

Thanks, everyone, for all your replies, such as they were.

Firsstly it is UHD tv, not 4k (calling it 4k is a misnomer). The standards for UHD beyond resolution have yet to be standardized. So know is not the time to buy a UHD tv. It is likely that the standards will not be in place and films will be released of at least another year or two (even if they soon have a big announcement).

Once UHD actually does come out content becomes the issue. There simply isn't much of it. There are far more 3d films made currently then 4k films (this is the appropriate time to use 4k as it is a professional standard that movies can be made to). Think of all the best looking films from recent years. Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, Avatar, Hugo, the Hobbit films etc, nearly all of them are made using a 2k DI with only a small number done using a 4k DI (the only ones that come immediately to mind are TAS1, Skyfall, Girl with a Dragon Tattoo and Elysium. But even then much of the source material is often not 4k (Elysium for example was shoot below that and Skyfall was shoot at 2.8k).

Widespread UHD content is a long way off, even next year will be very early to buy in.

As for the soap opera effect, I myself hate it, but what model do you have? I thought there plasmas for years had all had frame interpolation (then again this is a feature I never really check for unless I have to turn it off).

tezster · 08-28-2014, 12:42 PM

I would personally wait for OLED to become more affordable - LG are making great strides towards increasing production, so I think the price will drop pretty quickly in the next 2-3 years. I'd love to see their 77" OLED around the $4k price mark in that time frame.

Suntory_Times · 08-28-2014, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezster

I would personally wait for OLED to become more affordable - LG are making great strides towards increasing production, so I think the price will drop pretty quickly in the next 2-3 years. I'd love to see their 77" OLED around the $4k price mark in that time frame.

15k down to 3.5k in eight months. Still, is there actual plans for an oled that large? (I'm a bit behind on oled at the moment).

ADWyatt · 08-28-2014, 05:25 PM

I'd like to thank everyone for their opinions and advice. You've all brought up some good points.

Of course, Suntory Times is correct when he states that 4k is really a slang term, and that the final specs for UHD are not yet in place. Many of us just assume that the resolution currently used in UHD demos will be approved, and I will go so far as to say that this might be a reasonable assumption on the public's part. It seems to me that enough UHD televisions have already been sold that any future variations from the expected standard will be accommodated by those televisions, and should be fairly straightforward.

In any event, such discussion was not the main point of my original post. The question regarded the best time and way to upgrade from my current TV.

As revealed in a previous post, it would certainly seem that a UHD set would be the best choice for the future. I sit twelve feet away from my 58" 1080p plasma, and when I stand that far from a 60" Samsung UHD set, it appears that the same picture would be sharper and more detailed on the LED Samsung than on the 1080p Panasonic plasma, but this can be very tricky reasoning when you take into account 1080i broadcasting, 1080p movies played natively or upscaled, motion juddering and lighting uniformity. Throw into the mixture sales people who will usually be trying to maximize profits, and you begin to think that spending all your time playing the piano might not be such a bad idea.

One thing I've noticed (and please feel free to correct me if my reasoning is wrong) is that on the Samsung 60" 7150 1080p LED TV, when I played a Blu-ray movie at 240Hz (for the soap opera look that I love) I could notice no juddering problem at all. Not so for any Samsung UHD TV, no matter how the salesman tried to adjust for it. It appears that Samsung does indeed have a judder problem with their current UHD sets, and to me it's distracting.

But UHD of some kind is the future, and there is not the slightest doubt about that. I'm calculating that problems with today's UHD sets will be largely resolved in the next models, and they will be a little more economically priced. And so I'm sticking with my timetable. I don't see a 60" or 65" OLED being sold for a halfway-reasonable price at the end of 2015, but if the cost came down to around $5,000 USD, I would be truly tempted to pull the trigger.

Blu-Dog · 08-28-2014, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

But UHD of some kind is the future, and there is not the slightest doubt about that. I'm calculating that problems with today's UHD sets will be largely resolved in the next models, and they will be a little more economically priced. And so I'm sticking with my timetable. I don't see a 60" or 65" OLED being sold for a halfway-reasonable price at the end of 2015, but if the cost came down to around $5,000 USD, I would be truly tempted to pull the trigger.

They've got to go a lot lower than that, and they will. It's a technology and production question, and someone will find an answer. Quite probably in less than a year.

Penton-Man · 08-28-2014, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

Of course, Suntory Times is correct when he states that 4k is really a slang term...

True, and I don’t mean to discredit Suntory Times but more with regards to writers for A/V websites, video gurus, etc. who tend to make a big deal out of the fact that the marketing arm of the consumer electronics industry decided to use the term ‘4K’ for UHD Phase 1 spatial resolution (3840 x 2160) as if the industry is either ignorant of the exact difference in pixels or they indeed know about it and are somehow being deceptive in cheating consumers out of some pixels. For, neither is the case. The term ‘4K’ is simply easier to sell to the mainstream public and stick on devices, advertisements, etc. as a logo. I also commonly tend to use it in regards to ‘UHD’ consumer display devices because personally I’d kind of like to reserve the acronym ‘UHD’ for when consumers actually get something substantially “ultra” to 8 bit, 4:2:0, Rec.709, 3840 x 2160 pixeled low dynamic range imagery.

Some things which the blogging pixel police tend not to point out are that….for 4K theatrical D-Cinema, a 4K image with a 2.39:1 (scope) aspect ratio is delivered having 4096 x 1716 pixels. Whereas, a 4K image with a 1.85:1 (flat) aspect ratio is delivered having 3996 x 2160 pixels, for example - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...96#post8171031 . So, I guess all 4K commercial theatrical movies with a 1.85:1 (flat) aspect ratio are not truly ‘4K’. Academy 4K (a storage format) is 3656 x 2664. Working In 4K post production, colorists are jumping all around ‘4K’, e.g. the working central extraction (from which at least some things were upscaled) for the ‘4K’ motion picture The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was 3600 x 1500 for the ‘4K’ DI.

Anyway, similar to potential issues in going from a 2K DI to a 1080p deliverable to home consumers with their 1080p TVs, any practical significance to the TV watching public as to the difference between ‘true’ 4K and ‘consumer’ 4K (UHD) pixel count was highlighted over 2½ years ago, when I pointed out that content creators had a choice of either cropping or rescaling down to 3840 pixels with the better choice being the former option for superior picture quality. Home theater enthusiasts shouldn’t dwell too much on the exact number of pixels when we enter the first ‘UHD’ phase of home entertainment as compared to concern for how compressed the pixels of these 4K masters…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=220755

will be in the delivery to consumers’ homes.

Suntory_Times · 08-29-2014, 12:52 AM

^ If they wanted to call it 4k then they should have made a 4k consumer/home standard and not called it UHD. We don't call blu-ray 2k, why would we start calling UHD 4k. Is that one extra letter really that hard to remember.

ADWyatt · 08-29-2014, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ If they wanted to call it 4k then they should have made a 4k consumer/home standard and not called it UHD. We don't call blu-ray 2k, why would we start calling UHD 4k. Is that one extra letter really that hard to remember.

Suntory, I understand your point, but I suspect that applying this or that label is actually about laziness, at least in this case. Now, I can't speak for other countries, but I know that we Americans, for all our virtues, can be as lazy as water flowing downhill; we will always choose the easiest path. There is no doubt in my mind that, while stores advertise UHD with quite large letters in their displays, we consumers call it 4k because it's just plain easier on the mind and tongue. There it is.

Please don't get me wrong. We Americans aren't lazy in terms of labor and responsibility, but we like everything as easy as possible in the world of entertainment. And we certainly want things to be orderly and simple to figure out. Perhaps in kind with other countries, we would only accept one tape format and one disc format. We would not accept bulky laser discs, but went wild for those little CD, DVD and hi-def discs. And I believe many of us found 3D glasses as too much of a hassle to bother with, which is why I think the technology never really had a big impact on this side of the pond.

Regarding the pronunciation of technology, I suppose we should be more precise in our language, but I'm forced to tell you that most of us Americans just don't care. Love us for who we are, and try not to be so harsh on us. Thanks, Suntory.

Penton-Man · 08-29-2014, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

Suntory, I understand your point, but I suspect that applying this or that label is actually about laziness, at least in this case....

There’s a little bit more marketing psychology (http://www.dcmarketingpro.com/) to it than that as ‘4K’ also sounds

and looks more attractive, be it on a device….http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=REG&A=details

Or at a venue where millions will be watching…

Like Sophia in an evening dress…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ra#post9637705
As opposed to wearing an Amish dress as posted about 2 weeks prior to the Emmy’s….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ra#post9573269

Since the pixel count of *true * 4K is close enough to that of *UHD*……
4K looks and sounds sexy
whereas
UHD = bland

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

but I know that we Americans, for all our virtues, can be as lazy as water flowing downhill; we will always choose the easiest path.

lol, don’t ever go mountain biking with my group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

...we like everything as easy as possible in the world of entertainment. And we certainly want things to be orderly and simple to figure out.

Good advice, I’ll be sure to try to refrain from talking about the vertical and horizontal resolution of shooting in the 4x3 sensor anamorphic ArriRaw mode with an Alexa or especially not commenting on Watson’s (from NASA) view on HFR and Human Vision….http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/publicati...PTEMotImag.pdf

Penton-Man · 08-29-2014, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

^ If they wanted to call it 4k then they should have made a 4k consumer/home standard and not called it UHD.

Blame 16:9 aspect ratio TV panels as opposed to 17:9 monitors…http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=REG&A=details

ADWyatt · 08-30-2014, 05:01 PM

Penton-Man, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my last post. Although we're in danger of leaving the main track for an alternate destination, quite apart from my original theme post, I think I should clarify some things.

I'm a long-retired professional athlete, and as such I think it's wonderful to see that you keep yourself in top physical condition. But I can't help thinking that you're a member of an intelligent minority, and if other Americans want to criticize me for my outlook, then I can live with it. In my opinion, what I believe can be revealed in statistics. A predominant number of us Americans are addicted to couch-potato entertainment, and the obesity level of our nation is shocking. In our supposedly-free society we are inundated daily with fast-food and technology-convenient commercials, and we have no idea how we're being hypnotized.

As for myself, I love a good movie, and I enjoy watching sports. (As I'm sure you'll agree, there can be no such thing as an official World Series unless the New York Yankees are in it.) But to keep physically and mentally active, I work out four times a week, bike for at least a mile daily, and travel extensively for landscape photography, which is anything but easy. And I'm careful to keep my weight at a constant 160 pounds. On the cerebral side, I play chess competitively, and play and study piano. At my age of 65, I need to constantly "strain the brain" to prevent premature mental deterioration.

But while it was not my intent to insult any individual, I will say that while we Americans work hard for the money we bring home, the vast majority of us don't seem to be very energetic in living the most fulfilling lives, particularly as we grow older. But I guess that's not all bad. Without American couchpotatoitis, 4k couldn't have a future. Never mind that most Americans don't have the faintest idea what UHD or 4k is.

By the way, here's a fascinating statistic. What is the most common form of pre-recorded entertainment in America? VCR tape. I kid you not.

schan1269 · 08-31-2014, 01:05 AM

Can I be first inline to buy your 58?

Penton-Man · 09-02-2014, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

In response...

Very well said

except for one thing

which I think you've failed to appreciate.

To address that comprehensively, give me some time (maybe by tomorrow) to find and scan some vintage, but precise documentation I’ve tucked away in my library which I can then use as a visual illustration to clearly make a counterpoint.

Penton-Man · 09-02-2014, 06:24 PM

ADWyatt, I do agree with everything you’ve said, except for this –

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

As for myself, I love a good movie, and I enjoy watching sports. (As I'm sure you'll agree, there can be no such thing as an official World Series unless the New York Yankees are in it.)

Full disclosure - I’m originally from….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...re#post9618755 so I may be biased given that as avid fans over the course of several years, my Dad and I (a young whippersnapper at the time) would walk starting from around Johns Hopkins all the way to Memorial Stadium to watch our Colts and Orioles during regular and post season play, visual illustration

-

especially to watch someone like Brooks…

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

At my age of 65, I need to constantly "strain the brain" to prevent premature mental deterioration.

Tell it brother

, mental exercise is good as there is much scientific evidence to suggest that exercising the mind as well as the body can help reduce the risk of some types of cognitive impairment as we get long in the tooth. *Use or it lose it*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

Penton-Man, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my last post. Although we're in danger of leaving the main track for an alternate destination, quite apart from my original theme post...

You’re welcome

. When I have more time to devote, I’ll try to type up and post my humble perspective about consumer grade TVs and home entertainment with regards to one value feature what I consider to be a significant, but rather underappreciated parameter by some videophiles during their quest in buying a new TV.

supersix4 · 09-02-2014, 06:41 PM

I'm sitting less than 8feet away from a 65'' UHD samsung, and having had a 55'' c8000 which was top of the line in late 2010 for samsung.

I would say it is NOT worth upgrading and unless you really want bigger size stick to a budget 1080p set.

If I was allowed to have the sets in my room for 2 weeks I'd say that while its great and there are some new features I really enjoy and I could find real value in upgrading if prices were closer but it is not worth the premium regardless of budget at the moment unless you really need a tv.

Penton-Man · 09-02-2014, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

When I have more time to devote, I’ll try to type up and post my humble perspective about consumer grade TVs and home entertainment with regards to one value feature what I consider to be a significant, but rather underappreciated parameter by some videophiles during their quest in buying a new TV.

I’m referring to ‘realness’ along with the sensation of actually being there (in the time and place of the movie or feeling like you’re present at the sporting venue, etc.) rather than ‘watching’ a screen or device (TV). In a nutshell, SIZE significantly matters and I think it’s afforded relatively little attention by social media video bloggers and TV reviewers…except perhaps by those front projection aficionados.

Viewing a larger image (either by getting a larger TV, or moving your seating closer to a 4K tv) will occupy a greater proportion of one’s retina (http://www.ic-at.org/papers/91117.pdf ) and thusly provide a greater sense of being there, a value feature which is dismissed or at least seemingly downplayed by videophiles in their decision-making process in the purchase of a new TV….despite the evidence of testing from NHK showing the value of this parameter in an increasing fashion up to at least 77 degrees (FOV angle).

Joe6pack might be rather clueless about things like contrast ratios, bit depth, color saturation, etc. (just like consumer forum OLED videophiles and ‘professional consumer TV reviewers’ are rather uninformed as to the effect of narrow spectral emission on the colors of what are considered to be zee very best OLEDs manufactured (Sony professional grade monitors used in post houses) and the inaccurate white point calibration based on probe measurable data producing matching problems between different displays), but technical wherewithal aside, Joe6pack’s eyes don’t lie when it comes to his visceral sense of watching a display device for the best home entertainment experience…..and he/she likes BIG.

Bottom line, before quickly, automatically defaulting to a certain sized TV in your purchasing mindset for your viewing pleasure, if several brands/models of displays are roughly equal in terms of picture quality and you’re not the troubled obsessive-compulsive type that searches for, or mentally over exaggerates the relative video merits and deficiencies of different display technologies and models, I suggest consumers in the market for a new TV put at least a little more thought into more innovative ways to enable purchasing a larger-sized TV…because size does matter.

For example, short of buying a front projector… putting off a purchase a few months in order to save more money to buy a bigger TV, moving the location of/or purchasing a different TV stand, innovative interior decorating directed towards switching around furniture or even buying a new sectional, coffee table, etc.

I know several people (and their wives) who never thought a 70” or 80” TV would ‘fit’ with their living space but once the husband put some effort into trying to make it all work by checking out contemporary furniture showrooms (in one case even hiring an interior decorator from here - http://cantoni.com/modern-furniture-store/ because he felt he needed help) and stopped devoting all their time exclusively to analyzing advertised picture quality TV specs on the internet, they became exceedingly happy with their larger-sized choice and the new, more modern interior decorating look to that room in their home.

Penton-Man · 09-04-2014, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Viewing a larger image...

Now, to provide an even greater ‘sense of being there’ over HD, combine a larger panel size along with the greater picture real estate of 4K acquisition by shooting at more than a short depth of field (essentially affording a wider camera angle with at least the same degree of detail as HD capture) and you’ll get a *double wow-ee* effect, like so… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ne#post9146116

Penton-Man · 09-26-2014, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADWyatt

Penton-Man, the New York Yankees...

Tip of the hat to the Captain (#2)
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...lliams-n211956

08-24-2014, 06:41 PM	#1
ADWyatt Active Member Member since:Jan 2007	Which buying decision would you recommend? My now-old 58" Panasonic 3D plasma still works great, but present and near-future technology is leaving it behind in terms of display quality. I would like to upgrade either this year or as late as December 2015, but this isn't such an easy thing to do. It seems as if for television this is truly the best of times and the worst of times. While 1080p sets have never been better, 4k programming will finally start to emerge at the end of 2015 with DirecTV offering more than 4k pay-per-view. And it may be reasonable to assume that 4k Blu-ray players will start to make their appearance. And then, of course, there is 4k OLED, which at the end of next year might almost be affordable. Here is what I'd love to have: For some odd reason I'm a big fan of the soap opera image. I don't know why, but there it is. My Panny can't display it, so I'd like to have a TV that can. Naturally, I also love 4k quality, and I really would like to have active-shutter 3D, or at the least a passive-shutter 3D image that could equal an active-shutter 4k 3D upscaled picture. Right now there are two possible TV purchases I'm looking into, and either one could be a bad misstep. Your opinion and advice could save me a lot of money and heartache by showing me buying strategies that I'm not considering. Here are my choices right now... 1. The Sharp Aquos 60" 1080p set that shows images somewhat higher than 1080p, as the company claims that it has a million more pixels than a standard 1080p set. This is currently a Best Buy exclusive that until recently was on sale for $1,699 USD. This set definitely has the soap opera image in 240 Hz that I'd like, and also uses active-shutter 3D. However, this isn't a 4k TV, and I have yet to read in-depth customer reviews on just how good this set is. I'm thinking it may be possible that when this set goes on sale again before the end of the year that I might keep it for three years, and then buy into 4k OLED, when the technology is more affordable and refined. The down side is that my contract with DISH will be up in November 2015, and by then DirecTV may have available one or more 4k channels. 2. Wait to buy until December 1, 2015, with the expectation that a 65" 4k OLED set will street in the U.S. for about $5,000. That would be passive-shutter 3D, and I'm not sure if such a set would give me the soap opera look, but it seems to me that 4k OLED would be the last word in picture quality for many years to come. I've never seen an OLED display, to be perfectly honest, and I can only assume that from the images I've seen on the internet, that this will be noticeably superior to LED. (By the way, I'm also fully aware that Panasonic is going to be releasing the 65" AX900 4k LED TV later this year, and the specs are all my heart would desire, but Panasonic seems to have trouble making a good LED model, or so I've read. But if this is a good set, it might be a more affordable alternative to OLED.) I have no doubt that there are many facts and considerations that I'm not taking into account for a purchase decision, and so I will thank everyone in advance who would like to offer his or her advice. Last edited by ADWyatt; 08-24-2014 at 06:44 PM.

08-28-2014, 12:42 PM	#4
tezster Expert Member Member since:Dec 2013 Location:Canada Home Theater Gallery:9 4K collection:135 Blu-ray collection:593 DVD collection:19	I would personally wait for OLED to become more affordable - LG are making great strides towards increasing production, so I think the price will drop pretty quickly in the next 2-3 years. I'd love to see their 77" OLED around the $4k price mark in that time frame. Last edited by tezster; 08-28-2014 at 12:43 PM. Reason: typo

08-28-2014, 05:25 PM	#6
ADWyatt Active Member Member since:Jan 2007	In response to opinions... I'd like to thank everyone for their opinions and advice. You've all brought up some good points. Of course, Suntory Times is correct when he states that 4k is really a slang term, and that the final specs for UHD are not yet in place. Many of us just assume that the resolution currently used in UHD demos will be approved, and I will go so far as to say that this might be a reasonable assumption on the public's part. It seems to me that enough UHD televisions have already been sold that any future variations from the expected standard will be accommodated by those televisions, and should be fairly straightforward. In any event, such discussion was not the main point of my original post. The question regarded the best time and way to upgrade from my current TV. As revealed in a previous post, it would certainly seem that a UHD set would be the best choice for the future. I sit twelve feet away from my 58" 1080p plasma, and when I stand that far from a 60" Samsung UHD set, it appears that the same picture would be sharper and more detailed on the LED Samsung than on the 1080p Panasonic plasma, but this can be very tricky reasoning when you take into account 1080i broadcasting, 1080p movies played natively or upscaled, motion juddering and lighting uniformity. Throw into the mixture sales people who will usually be trying to maximize profits, and you begin to think that spending all your time playing the piano might not be such a bad idea. One thing I've noticed (and please feel free to correct me if my reasoning is wrong) is that on the Samsung 60" 7150 1080p LED TV, when I played a Blu-ray movie at 240Hz (for the soap opera look that I love) I could notice no juddering problem at all. Not so for any Samsung UHD TV, no matter how the salesman tried to adjust for it. It appears that Samsung does indeed have a judder problem with their current UHD sets, and to me it's distracting. But UHD of some kind is the future, and there is not the slightest doubt about that. I'm calculating that problems with today's UHD sets will be largely resolved in the next models, and they will be a little more economically priced. And so I'm sticking with my timetable. I don't see a 60" or 65" OLED being sold for a halfway-reasonable price at the end of 2015, but if the cost came down to around $5,000 USD, I would be truly tempted to pull the trigger.

08-30-2014, 05:01 PM	#13
ADWyatt Active Member Member since:Jan 2007	In response... Penton-Man, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my last post. Although we're in danger of leaving the main track for an alternate destination, quite apart from my original theme post, I think I should clarify some things. I'm a long-retired professional athlete, and as such I think it's wonderful to see that you keep yourself in top physical condition. But I can't help thinking that you're a member of an intelligent minority, and if other Americans want to criticize me for my outlook, then I can live with it. In my opinion, what I believe can be revealed in statistics. A predominant number of us Americans are addicted to couch-potato entertainment, and the obesity level of our nation is shocking. In our supposedly-free society we are inundated daily with fast-food and technology-convenient commercials, and we have no idea how we're being hypnotized. As for myself, I love a good movie, and I enjoy watching sports. (As I'm sure you'll agree, there can be no such thing as an official World Series unless the New York Yankees are in it.) But to keep physically and mentally active, I work out four times a week, bike for at least a mile daily, and travel extensively for landscape photography, which is anything but easy. And I'm careful to keep my weight at a constant 160 pounds. On the cerebral side, I play chess competitively, and play and study piano. At my age of 65, I need to constantly "strain the brain" to prevent premature mental deterioration. But while it was not my intent to insult any individual, I will say that while we Americans work hard for the money we bring home, the vast majority of us don't seem to be very energetic in living the most fulfilling lives, particularly as we grow older. But I guess that's not all bad. Without American couchpotatoitis, 4k couldn't have a future. Never mind that most Americans don't have the faintest idea what UHD or 4k is. By the way, here's a fascinating statistic. What is the most common form of pre-recorded entertainment in America? VCR tape. I kid you not.

08-27-2014, 04:13 PM	#2
ADWyatt Active Member Member since:Jan 2007	My own reply... I'm going to go ahead and answer my question myself, partly because I am getting zero response from any of the members here, and partly because I can now see the obvious purchasing strategy for my situation. I should have known what to do all along, and I'm sort of embarrassed that I didn't see it as plain as day. When I am contractually able to join DirecTV by about November 2015, they will already have PPV 4k movies, and will shortly have one or more 4k channels up-and-running. That's the time to purchase a new 4K TV, and not before. The 2015 sets will be more refined and somewhat lower in cost. Almost certainly I will not have the budget for an OLED TV, as I believe a 65" set will probably cost at least $7,000. However, LED sets are really quite good already, and should be even better by the end of next year. So for now my Panny plasma will do just fine. It's not 4k, and technology has passed it by, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth from it. Thanks, everyone, for all your replies, such as they were.

08-29-2014, 12:52 AM	#9
Suntory_Times Blu-ray Champion Member since:Mar 2008 Location:The Grid Blu-ray reviews:16 Trading Score:23	^ If they wanted to call it 4k then they should have made a 4k consumer/home standard and not called it UHD. We don't call blu-ray 2k, why would we start calling UHD 4k. Is that one extra letter really that hard to remember.

08-31-2014, 01:05 AM	#14
schan1269 Blu-ray Guru Member since:Sep 2013 Location:Lake county, Indiana. Opposite end of Gary... Blu-ray reviews:2	Can I be first inline to buy your 58?

09-02-2014, 06:41 PM	#17
supersix4 Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Mar 2007 Blu-ray collection:572 Blu-ray reviews: 53 Trading Score:3	I'm sitting less than 8feet away from a 65'' UHD samsung, and having had a 55'' c8000 which was top of the line in late 2010 for samsung. I would say it is NOT worth upgrading and unless you really want bigger size stick to a budget 1080p set. If I was allowed to have the sets in my room for 2 weeks I'd say that while its great and there are some new features I really enjoy and I could find real value in upgrading if prices were closer but it is not worth the premium regardless of budget at the moment unless you really need a tv.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals