Want to buy a 4K/UHD TV - Help please

CLAWS

CLAWS

CLAWS

Associate
Joined
13 Jun 2005
Posts
1,416
Location
West Midlands
Hi folks,

Since I wont be converting my garage into a gym anymore and since I wont be getting a dog anymore the wife has said in so many words "get a new TV".

So, towards the end of June I am looking to get a new TV preferably 4K. I am trying to get as much information as possible before the purchase hence a cry for help in early May.

Budget - Around 2K
Size - 47"+
3D - Don't really care
Smart TV - Yes please, will be using Netflix and will also be streaming from NAS

Do you guys have any recommendations? Been reading some bumf about HEVC and Netflix providing 4K content. Worth waiting for the TV's with this codec? The wife and I use Netflix a lot.

Any advice is much appreciated :)
 
you have to be either incredibly affluent or stupid to buy a 4K tv atm, it's pointless unless your pc gaming at 4k

long story short - buy yourself a TV for £1000 then upgrade again in 5-10 years when it's worth upgrading

spend the rest of the budget on something more worthwhile like a projector setup, surround sound system with AVR, a holiday somewhere nice and sunny, etc, etc.

4K atm is just pointless, theres next to zero content and no real plans to make 4K readily available.

also if you plan on streaming 4K good luck with that you will need a pretty decent connection and a provider that can sustain the bandwidth for long periods of time.

the stuff that is available is pretty crap tbh, just people testing 4K crap on youtube, you would have to be a moron to buy a 4K tv for youtube tbh and that is basically the only real provider for 4K atm.

i also doubt netflix will be upgrading everything to 4K anytime soon, there will be a few select movies available so your paying that extra £3000+ to watch a handful of titles at 4K, probably work out to something stupid like £100 per movie.

the same 4K tv will cost you 10% of the cost today in 5 years time.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... food for thought that is. Projector setup is a no no. Wife does not want me cutting holes in walls or digging up holes in the floor to pass cables. Ill stick with looking for a TV. Gutted regarding what you said about 4K tech :(
 
if you really want to spend that type of cash then a 1080P OLED tv is the way to go.

what is your budget? go to avforums and look into OLED and 1080P panels.


4K is seriously for people with more money then sense atm, OLED 1080P panels will blow your mind and at least content is readily available.
 
Or get a high end plasma before they out of stock. Agree that atm Ultra Hd is a waste as there is very little content for it. Even for pc gaming its a bit moot as very few 4k tvs come with display port for 60hz gaming or devices with the new hdmi spec. Besides ultra hd leds still have the issues that 1080p displays have.
 
for the price of a high end plasma i think it's worth buying a OLED tbh for the extra.

OLED is the future and buying a 4K LCD would just be painful IMO, I would have to seriously stop myself from telling anyone I know who had bought one showing it off to me, that they had just ****** quite a lot of money down the drain and that OLED is a lot better.

people always see numbers and think bigger is better, I could show you a 8 megapixel camera which is better than a 20 megapixel camera for instance, simple because the lens, sensor, etc are far far superior in the 8 megapixel camera.

it's the same with OLED, the colours, black levels, white levels are far far superior to that of LCD being marketed as LED. Plasma is in the middle of them.

OLED > Plasma > LCD (with LED backlight) > LCD (with CCFL backlight)

price wise though plasma has the best bang for your buck and atm a 1080P OLED > everything else in terms of picture quality, obviously though a 4K OLED would be amazing but it will probably cost you around £25,000 for one of them atm.
 
Hmm, will add my 2 pence.

If you can't get a projector (go on ;)) but want the best quality possible from your TV then you might as well get 4k as upscaled 1080p on a well calibrated set will look better than 1080p on a 1080p set BUT and the big but, you will pay extra for this, most 4k TV's start at 55" and those are around £2.5k and you won't see any difference over 1080p unless you sit like 7 feet away max. 65" at around £4k and you can sit 10-11 feet away and appreciate the extra detail but 99% of content will be 1080p and it is now completely up in the air whether 4k content will ever become mainstream (full bit 4k) as the Hollywood companies are very reluctant to take up a new format as there should have been a few filtering through by now.

Sony are doing the big push with there mastered for 4k blu-rays which are downscaled to 1080p but as Sony know the downscaling method they can accurately predict the 4k result. However, as its on a standard blu-ray disk you only get a bit of smoother colour transition as opposed to extra picture detail. They are also promising a 4k media server which if recent rumous are anything to go by, will only work in the US....possibly ever.

So best picture 4k TV but you will probably pay twice as much for 5-10% better picture quality in best possible circumstances ie blu-ray. If you watch SD then I would wait for it to be in HD. It will look awful on 4k.
 
OP - Do you realise that you have to sit abnormally close to a 4K TV to notice any extra detail over 1080p?


e.g. You have to sit closer than 2.5m on a 55" to just start noticing pixels on 1080p and under 1m to make the most of the extra res of 4K.
 
Richeh said:
So best picture 4k TV but you will probably pay twice as much for 5-10% better picture quality in best possible circumstances ie blu-ray. If you watch SD then I would wait for it to be in HD. It will look awful on 4k.
Click to expand...

best picture on a 4K tv?

OLED in fact cheap low end plasmas have better PQ than 4K LCD's.

Resolution =/= Picture Quality

Quality is determined by colours, contrast levels between black and white beside each other, refresh rates and most importantly black levels which LCD's are crap at full stop.

There has even been reviews (from avforums and hdtvtest) stating that a £500 Samsung plasma beat a £3000+ 4K LCD in terms of PQ, etc.

Resolution has very little to do with PQ, it improves detail not quality of the picture.

How can you improve detail when it's not there in the first place (no 4K content)?
 
Richeh said:
Hmm, will add my 2 pence.

If you can't get a projector (go on ;)) but want the best quality possible from your TV then you might as well get 4k as upscaled 1080p on a well calibrated set will look better than 1080p on a 1080p set BUT and the big but, you will pay extra for this, most 4k TV's start at 55" and those are around £2.5k and you won't see any difference over 1080p unless you sit like 7 feet away max. 65" at around £4k and you can sit 10-11 feet away and appreciate the extra detail but 99% of content will be 1080p and it is now completely up in the air whether 4k content will ever become mainstream (full bit 4k) as the Hollywood companies are very reluctant to take up a new format as there should have been a few filtering through by now.

Sony are doing the big push with there mastered for 4k blu-rays which are downscaled to 1080p but as Sony know the downscaling method they can accurately predict the 4k result. However, as its on a standard blu-ray disk you only get a bit of smoother colour transition as opposed to extra picture detail. They are also promising a 4k media server which if recent rumous are anything to go by, will only work in the US....possibly ever.

So best picture 4k TV but you will probably pay twice as much for 5-10% better picture quality in best possible circumstances ie blu-ray. If you watch SD then I would wait for it to be in HD. It will look awful on 4k.
Click to expand...
Is that actually accurate? It's my understanding that most film is shot in 4k or above (RED cameras for example) and then screened in most digital cinemas using 4k+ projectors. It's then downsampled to 1080p for BD distribution.

It's the consumer distribution market that is the only bit not in 4k at the moment. If the masters and theatrical data is in 4k getting consumer releases into 4k should be pretty quick and easy. I think the big issue is BD isn't big enough at the moment and distributors are still in the dark ages with streaming. Shouldn't be very long before that changes thougs, I forsee 4k becoming mainstream much quicker than 1080p did.
 
Last years LG 55" OLED is down to just over £3k in places. A fair amount over your budget but it's pretty much the best TV on the market atm. The 2014 model is out now I believe retailing at around £7k. Haven't seen any reviews.
 
Amp34 said:
Is that actually accurate? It's my understanding that most film is shot in 4k or above (RED cameras for example) and then screened in most digital cinemas using 4k+ projectors. It's then downsampled to 1080p for BD distribution.

It's the consumer distribution market that is the only bit not in 4k at the moment. If the masters and theatrical data is in 4k getting consumer releases into 4k should be pretty quick and easy. I think the big issue is BD isn't big enough at the moment and distributors are still in the dark ages with streaming. Shouldn't be very long before that changes thougs, I forsee 4k becoming mainstream much quicker than 1080p did.
Click to expand...

How so?

As you say there is only some media that can support it and any media that does is very expensive. Your talking over £50 per movie iirc at the moment to buy a 4K movie basically on a small hard drive.

Also what sustained speed will be required to stream 4K content at a decent quality where you can appreciate 4K?

Netflix

1 Mbps for viewing on a laptop computer
2 Mbps for SD video on a TV
4 Mbps for 720p HD video
5 Mbps for "the best video and audio experience" (according to Netflix)

It's 4MB for 720P so you can assume it will be 20MB+ for 4K, which a lot of people just don't physically have access to.

I believe streaming is the way forward though but BB infrastructure needs to improve drastically especially in areas like private estates where there are lots of affluent people prepared to pay the big money for such services.

Physical Media is just far too expensive.

Sky will be launching a 4K service soon as will streamers, of the 2 only sky will be readily available to anyone, streaming depends a lot on your location and your BB availability.

I don't see it becoming mainstream for about 10 years, the very affluent will get it within the next 2 years because they can, then middle classes after them before the masses catch onto it.
 
Last edited:
You've answered your own question. The material is there (which is what I was replying about), all modern films can be sold in 4k.

The difficulty is consumer media at the moment. As you already mention sky are jumping on it, along with others WRT streaming services. Many normal people currently have the BB speeds to stream 4k and the networks are being constantly updated. That's if you stream at all, downloading is another option.

As for media you already have USB systems in many locations that will copy a film to your USB device. The actual content is already shot and processed in 4k+, it's not going to take 10 years for all films to be available in 4k. 4k screens have only become commercial in the last year or so so it's pretty self evident that consumer content will take a year or two to come out. BR technology is also making leaps and bounds, although I think the physical printed disk disk is not going to be as important a media this time round.

These same arguments were used when 1080p was at this stage and that didn't take 10 years either.

I'm going to estimate the majority of people will be able to buy the majority of new films in 4k by the end of 2015 in some form or other (streaming, physical media, download etc.), way before 2024 that you suggest.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't however think the majority of people will be buying 4k media in 2 years due to having only recently upgraded to 1080p and not wanting to fork out 2k+ on a new screen. The media will be available for those that buy 4k screens however.
 
Last edited:
The media is already available now

Two television manufacturers are facing the 4K dilemma directly. Sony offers the most developed way to watch 4K entertainment. The company's 4K Ultra HD Media Player, a $700 4K video player, downloads content overnight to a 2TB hard drive and is compatible only with Sony televisions. You can purchase or rent new content via Sony's 4K version of its Video Unlimited online service, downloading films like "The Amazing Spider-Man" and shows like "Breaking Bad" (both made by Sony Pictures). Films cost around $30 to buy and $8 to rent (for 24 hours) and are about 40GB in size; television episodes are available to purchase at $4 each. There are currently about 80 films available. Adding in TV episodes (such as "Breaking Bad"), the service still has less than 200 pieces of content.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/4k-video-source-faq,news-18021.html

America only atm though that is the problem.

My point being it is all far too expensive they even sell physical copies of 4K movies I think it was around $160 for 3 movies on a hard drive last time I checked.

Physical media which can hold 4K is far too expensive we need to wait until that becomes cheaper, then we need to wait for the masses to buy 4K players, etc that will take 10 years IMO.

People are buying 4K right now but it's all pointless IMO unless your affluent.

Better off waiting 5-10 years then buying well I started saying 5-10 years about 18 months ago so now it's more like 3.5-8.5 years (from my original prediction) from now as time has passed but it's easier to say 5 and 10.

So i think sometime between 2018 and 2023 will be the time to buy 4K and it will be worthwhile. You will be able to buy a 60+ inch 4K screen for under £1000 by then and that is when I will make the switch when it's substantially cheaper and worthwhile doing so because everything is in place.

Buying a 4K now is like buying an electric car now for when oil runs out in the future, its far too premature.
 
Pftt!!...the wife says no to this, the wife says no to that!...GROW SOME BALLS MAN!! LOL :P

Anyway!

For streaming 4K content you're looking at having least a 15mb download speed. (not uncommon now I know :p) so you're stuffed if you haven't got this basic requirement.

Netfix will be making it available probably in time for the world cup which will be filmed in 4K def.

Buy a good 1080p tv NOW and give it a number of years to see which direction 4k goes!...
 
Amp34 said:
These same arguments were used when 1080p was at this stage and that didn't
Edit: Just to clarify, I don't however think the majority of people will be buying 4k media in 2 years due to having only recently upgraded to 1080p and not wanting to fork out 2k+ on a new screen. The media will be available for those that buy 4k screens however.
Click to expand...

Good read on that and why so many still purchase DVD.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1530039/sony-blames-blu-ray-for-bag-of-hurt
 
I doubt I will ever be able to stream 4k.this is true for a lot of people.

Streaming will never be an answer for me. In fact the gap between my bandwidth and top quality stream is widening.
Therefore the only use I would get out of 4k now is games
Even when 4k becomes mainstream I will need physical media to play it
I still have to download YouTube videos to watch them.

I ddon't subscribe to any stream services and doubt I ever will as long as physical media is around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom