Any reason not to get 4K?

[detective392]

May be getting a new TV soon. Something around 50inches. Is there any reason not to get 4K? What content can I get in 4K? Is it just Netflix so far?

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by detective392

May be getting a new TV soon. Something around 50inches. Is there any reason not to get 4K? What content can I get in 4K? Is it just Netflix so far?

Since 4K sets are coming down in price, I don't see a reason not to buy one if the price difference is basically nominal vs a similar 1080p set.

Having said that, 50 inches is too small to invest the extra $$ for 4K (if cost is much higher), you will see no difference unless you sitting like 2 feet from it.

If money is no object, I highly encourage you to get the LG 55 in OLED.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by detective392

May be getting a new TV soon. Something around 50inches. Is there any reason not to get 4K? What content can I get in 4K? Is it just Netflix so far?

most of the higher end sets are 4K anyways, only a few companies maybe only Sony, is even making a 1080p TV that is otherwise comparable to a 4K model but without the resolution.

I'd say budget what you want to spend on a tv first, and then look at tvs in that price range. If they're 4K, then go for it.

As for content. Netflix has some good stuff, especially their original series. Amazon Prime also has some good stuff, and a lot more stuff you can buy or rent in UHD.

[Dylan34]

I just got a 55 inch Sony XBR X850C 4K TV and the picture quality is phenomenal!!!! It upscales my blu-rays nicely. I can't wait until 4k UHD blu-ray is released later this year. I sit about 5 to 6 feet away and I can see a big difference between 1080p and 2160p. Go for the 4K panel bro!!!!!!

[Zhorik]

As long as it has hdcp 2.2 and hdmi 2.0a. For 50" you should still see difference with hdr content.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Zhorik

As long as it has hdcp 2.2 and hdmi 2.0a. For 50" you should still see difference with hdr content.

HDR has nothing to do with resolution. Anyway, I would never buy a 55 4K LED set over a 1080p OLED set if money wasn't and issue.

"ISF states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Resolution is 4th on the list, so look at other factors first. Also, be sure to calibrate your display! I recommend the following calibration tools."

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

HDR has nothing to do with resolution. Anyway, I would never buy a 55 4K LED set over a 1080p OLED set if money wasn't and issue.

"ISF states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Resolution is 4th on the list, so look at other factors first. Also, be sure to calibrate your display! I recommend the following calibration tools."

I'm in complete agreement with you ........... It just another marketing tool to separate folks from their hard earned $$$$$$$

[Vriess]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

HDR has nothing to do with resolution. Anyway, I would never buy a 55 4K LED set over a 1080p OLED set if money wasn't and issue.

"ISF states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Resolution is 4th on the list, so look at other factors first. Also, be sure to calibrate your display! I recommend the following calibration tools."

Yes, I am far more interested in really good contrast ratios than extra detail. High contrast is what makes the picture "pop" and really draws you in to the image.

How long will 1080p OLED's be around? I don't see the point in jumping to 4k (and paying more) when I haven't even gotten a really good viewing at 1080p yet.

[skiizim]

Originally Posted by Zhorik

As long as it has hdcp 2.2 and hdmi 2.0a. For 50" you should still see difference with hdr content.

There are only a handful is sets that will be HDR compliant with the 2015 models, most of the sets don't meet the requirements to properly play HDR. Most of the 2015 sets that do meet the requirements are top tier sets, there is a thread on avs that claims there older Samsung can now play HDR with the newer OCB.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I just got a 55 inch Sony XBR X850C 4K TV and the picture quality is phenomenal!!!! It upscales my blu-rays nicely. I can't wait until 4k UHD blu-ray is released later this year. I sit about 5 to 6 feet away and I can see a big difference between 1080p and 2160p. Go for the 4K panel bro!!!!!!

You must have better than 2020 vision?

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

"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"

Never reject science in your decision making. The marketing of some consumer electronic companies is very powerful, they will make you hear things and see things that are really not detectable.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You must have better than 2020 vision?

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

"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"

Never reject science in your decision making. The marketing of some consumer electronic companies is very powerful, they will make you hear things and see things that are really not detectable.

Being able to clearly see the pixelated edges on stationary credits, is enough for me to realize that 2K/HD is not the be all-end all. It's like a glass of cold water being splashed in my face, telling me that what I'm watching is not theater quality. Especially when the titles are reference quality video when it comes to the BD format and otherwise look fantastic.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Brian81

Being able to clearly see the pixelated edges on stationary credits, is enough for me to realize that 2K/HD is not the be all-end all. It's like a glass of cold water being splashed in my face, telling me that what I'm watching is not theater quality. Especially when the titles are reference quality video when it comes to the BD format and otherwise look fantastic.

So you weren't watching 4K content? And you think it's not any better?


Interesting.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by Brian81

Being able to clearly see the pixelated edges on stationary credits, is enough for me to realize that 2K/HD is not the be all-end all. It's like a glass of cold water being splashed in my face, telling me that what I'm watching is not theater quality. Especially when the titles are reference quality video when it comes to the BD format and otherwise look fantastic.

Not taking a stance against 4k, because I like that a/v quality keeps advancing, but that might be device or calibration issue. I recently got a 120" projector screen, and the only time anything BD looked pixelated, most notably the credits, was when my sharpness setting was up too high. DVD looks like hell on that screen though

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You must have better than 2020 vision?

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

"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"

Never reject science in your decision making.

In response to the bolding ^ by moi.

Well informed folks don’t.

Good science, meaning professionals dealing in vision science on a day-to-day basis, conclude the chart is *off* (i.e. too conservative) –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ly#post9988016

In a nutshell, one way in which it fails in precision is because it’s based upon 1 arc minute V.A. Even a known 4K-disparagaing video engineer who is a SMPTE fellow admits that detail perception with video displays is not as simple as basing it all upon 1 arc minute visual acuity (V.A.) - http://www.schubincafe.com/2010/02/26/the-e-and-eye/

Good science by extremely well informed folks brings about good things, for example, see the Update at the end of this post.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

You must have better than 2020 vision?

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

"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"

Never reject science in your decision making. The marketing of some consumer electronic companies is very powerful, they will make you hear things and see things that are really not detectable.

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

ignore him. He drags out the same tired arguments and intentional confusion of the subject every time the topic of 4K comes out.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

You just made a claim, now substantiate with data, facts and proof. Who are all of these "lots of folks" ? Please give me a your sample/test group that represent the masses of people that can discern 1080p from 4K using the same size screen at equal distances.

I deal with science, data, facts etc., objectivity.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Actually, I have better than 20/20 but that's besides the point. A lot of folks can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. If you cant I'm sorry but it doesn't give you the right to talk down to others for wanting to go 4K.

About half of all American adults don't have the 20/20 vision physicians consider optimal because they are nearsighted, farsighted, or have an irregular corneal curve known as astigmatism, a large, new study reports http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5559295

In light of the above report, I highly doubt it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by detective392

May be getting a new TV soon. Something around 50inches.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...as evidenced by one consumer testing study which indicated that being as far as 9 ft. away from the screen showed the ability of 48 out of 49 observers to appreciate the difference between 4K and 1080p content with a 55” TV.…http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

And since the time of that ^ 4K/UHD vs. HD shootout, resolution aside, people say that the features, processing, etc. offered with newer 4K displays surpass what you get with 1080p TVs.

[nik666uk]

High input lag (for gaming)