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

lol I really do not get that people do not see the sitting closer as an option.

We have established for every day use there is no actual negatives to having a 4K TV other than prices and a lack of native content.

For me though if I had a lovely expensive 4K TV in my lounge and I got hold of one of my favourites "lesbian lust inferno" for example in full 4K yes I might indeed move the sofa closer for "cinema night" the days of your mother telling you not to sit too close to the tv are long gone.

Oh and for the record I sit 10.2 feet from my 120" screen and Panasonic PT8000.
 
I'm still interested in seeing how AVRs are going to jive with native 4K (considering all the top ones now still only have 4k upscaling but don't do passthrough of full 4K) - consumers are going for ****y sound bars given a general lack of space for 5/7.1 or more but **** that, 4K BD player into 4K AVR plz, so I can actually get some good sound from good speakers.
 
4K doesn't fit onto Blu Ray though does it?

They are working on upgrading Blu Ray iirc but also a new media disc for 4K because there's no way 8K will fit even onto the upgraded version of Blu Rays.

I'd rather wait and see what happens tbh, I remember what happened when I imported a HD DVD player for my 360 it was soon a paper weight.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
That review site you posted is a load of crap

http://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ue55f9000-55-inch-4k-ultra-hd-led-lcd-tv-review.587

far more trustworthy and they gave it a 9/10 which means it is a good set so the picture should look fantastic on it and also gave it the highly recommended award.

It costs over £2000 here, you could get a similar PQ set for half the price here only difference being it will be 1080P.

The fact you can get it for £1300 is irrelevant to most people on here as they cannot. At that price yes it is very cheap. At over £2K then I would rather spend £1K now and then another £1K in 3-8 years time when 8K is available and the prices of 4K tv's are rock bottom.

No big loss as your mate only paid £1300, but to pay £2K for a 4K now when 8K will be coming out soon after 4K much like 1080P hit straight after HD ready 720P sets did.

I would rather wait and get a bargain than pay through the nose to be beta tester with very little content available.

The point about being rich also related to media, how much does it currently cost to get a 4K movie? No point buying a 4K tv if you cannot afford 4K media. That's like buying an aston martin and cannot afford the petrol so you resort to stealing it (downloading).

Also how many pirates would be willing to spend so much on 4K media to then give it away for free? I doubt many would be also download times would be painfully slow due to the sizes of files involved.
Click to expand...

That review site is not "a load of crap", it's a good one and has been for years and produces solid reviews. The fact it posted exactly the same score as AVForums, a site I have also used for many years, shows that it's not garbage.

As for 4k, it will be on torrent sites... people will always spend, and while this may surprise you, not everyone has limited budgets that stop them dropping 2k on a TV. Some of us have good jobs and high disposable income that make discussions of saying an extra few hundred quid irrelevant when it means getting new toys to play with. People on this forum think nothing of dropping hundreds,nay thousands, on short-life PC's and upgrading them on a regular basis , so in comparison I would say 4k HDTV's are small potatoes financially.

You are not the only person that has knowledge about AV and seem to be assuming that the rest of us know jack ****... and in my case (and many others I have seen here) that's far from it. Be a bit more humble. ;)
 
Last edited:
Richdog said:
That review site is not "a load of crap", it's a good one and has been for years and produces solid reviews. The fact it posted exactly the same score as AVForums, a site I have also used for many years, shows that it's not garbage.

You are not the only person that has knowledge about AV and seem to be assuming that the rest of us know jack ****... and in my case (and many others I have seen here) far that's from it. Be a bit more humble. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid Psycho Sonny doesn't know how to communicate with people and has no clue about tact. After all, people from Glasgow wonder how they get a bad reputation.
 
Ok, so bottom line is that it is possible to get a 4K TV for a decent(ish) price. The "gotcha" being that 4K content is expensive and this would be the case for some time until it becomes full on mainstream.

My internet connection is with PlusNet and is a very good connection maxing out at something like 30MB/s last time I checked.

Thing is I wont be venturing into the stores until late June, so Id like to think I do have time on my side.

To those saying I should grow a pair and get a projector, the simple answer is that I actually do not want a projector. We moved into our house back in October and there is still a lot of change going on. Fitting in a projector would be nice but when I extend my lounge and shift things around then rejigging the projector is another job I don't need. A TV is just easier to move around even if it is a big one.
 
CLAWS said:
To those saying I should grow a pair and get a projector, the simple answer is that I actually do not want a projector. We moved into our house back in October and there is still a lot of change going on. Fitting in a projector would be nice but when I extend my lounge and shift things around then rejigging the projector is another job I don't need. A TV is just easier to move around even if it is a big one.
Click to expand...

I will back you up on that... a couple of my friends have projectors and I just think they are either something you love or hate in your home. Personally I am the latter, I find them very annoying and much prefer a big TV.
 
I would love a projector but for me it would have to be done right and have it's own dedicated room completely customised to suit the projector tbh.

I already have a dedicated room for my home gym, another for a home cinema is a big ask. I also think I would prefer a games room tbh with a pool table in it which I can use a cover on top for playing poker on.

Projectors are very specialised equipment and they don't suit everyone or their homes like a TV does.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
I would love a projector but for me it would have to be done right and have it's own dedicated room completely customised to suit the projector tbh.

I already have a dedicated room for my home gym, another for a home cinema is a big ask. I also think I would prefer a games room tbh with a pool table in it which I can use a cover on top for playing poker on.

Projectors are very specialised equipment and they don't suit everyone or their homes like a TV does.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it needs to be a dedicated man cave, otherwise it can ruin the look and feel of a "normal" room. And yes, a pool cum poker room would be the preferable option... my dream home will have one for sure., heh.
 
That is why I don't think I'll ever have a projector tbh, games room and gym for me are far better and more enjoyable.

I'm happy with my 50" screen which can be used in any room with zero hassle.
 
I'd just like to say that Psycho Sonny's talk about the 4k/8k timescales in general are complete tosh. I can't be bothered to argue about it endlessly with him but 8k coming out 'soon after' 4k is complete ********, 4k taking 5-10 years to become mainstream is nonsense aswell. If you want one, get one. You ARE an early adopter, but 'middle adopters' are 1-2 years away at most.

As probably one of the only people in this thread/on this forum to have seen with my own two eyes 4k and 8k TV's (of which there are only a handful in existence) for the last 3 years, I like to think I'd know something on the matter. FWIW I am a software engineer at one of the top top digital tv manufacturers, I attend meetings with the DTG, ETSI, DLNA, BBC, etc. etc. frequently discussing the state of these things and working on standards. So yes I do have a good grasp of the subject.
 
Samsung have just released a new 4k TV, the Samsung UE55HU6900. HDMI 2.0 is implemented, quad core running the internals, and the UK pricing seems to be around £1250 with a decent warranty. If you're in the market for a new TV then it seems like a great option as it's basically the same price as many 1080p sets. No idea if there's a 65" version... I couldn't find one at least. Think they are only doing 46", 50" and 55".

With that kind of aggressive pricing there's not many reasons not to go 4k with a new TV now, unless you are looking for something bigger.

Chris1712 said:
I'd just like to say that Psycho Sonny's talk about the 4k/8k timescales in general are complete tosh. I can't be bothered to argue about it endlessly with him but 8k coming out 'soon after' 4k is complete ********, 4k taking 5-10 years to become mainstream is nonsense aswell. If you want one, get one. You ARE an early adopter, but 'middle adopters' are 1-2 years away at most.

As probably one of the only people in this thread/on this forum to have seen with my own two eyes 4k and 8k TV's (of which there are only a handful in existence) for the last 3 years, I like to think I'd know something on the matter. FWIW I am a software engineer at one of the top top digital tv manufacturers, I attend meetings with the DTG, ETSI, DLNA, BBC, etc. etc. frequently discussing the state of these things and working on standards. So yes I do have a good grasp of the subject.
Click to expand...

Good to have an industry expert weighing in on the subject. :)
 
Chris1712 said:
I'd just like to say that Psycho Sonny's talk about the 4k/8k timescales in general are complete tosh. I can't be bothered to argue about it endlessly with him but 8k coming out 'soon after' 4k is complete ********, 4k taking 5-10 years to become mainstream is nonsense aswell. If you want one, get one. You ARE an early adopter, but 'middle adopters' are 1-2 years away at most.

As probably one of the only people in this thread/on this forum to have seen with my own two eyes 4k and 8k TV's (of which there are only a handful in existence) for the last 3 years, I like to think I'd know something on the matter. FWIW I am a software engineer at one of the top top digital tv manufacturers, I attend meetings with the DTG, ETSI, DLNA, BBC, etc. etc. frequently discussing the state of these things and working on standards. So yes I do have a good grasp of the subject.
Click to expand...

Timescale aside - what are your opinions on 4K? At normal viewing distances with 'normal' TV sizes.
 
Personally I like it for two things, monitors (oh lawd dat dpi & screen real estate) and BIG tv's. 55"+, the bigger the better. It is noticeably better, not only in quality but in the new production style it allows (wider shots, less panning etc. etc.).
You can achieve ALMOST the same quality now with things like the darblet post processing thing, though it is obviously much more artificial.

One of the best demo's I've seen was a live football match where they actually used very few cameras, with wide shots and not much movement. Combining this with the 84" panel it felt at times like you were sat in the crowd, especially at corners/throw-ins etc.
The bonus really is that it will push the market towards larger panels aswell, personally I've had projectors for the last ~5 years so the idea of a panel less than 80" or so just does not appeal to me, even budget brands will bring out 84" panels in the next 12 months.
It's also a great way to usher in HEVC, once there's a large enough install base we could potentially turn off DVB-T & MPEG-2 (controversial! But heck it would be awesome right?).

EDIT: As for 'normal' sizes. This changes, I remember back when 720p launched 26"/32" was 'normal'. I'd guess that 42" is normal now, and sales of 50"+ are actually accelerating quicker than any other size at the end of HD. I think 55" will be the 'normal' for 4k, with 65" being the same as 50" was ~ 3 years ago, and so on.

I bought in to 720p before HDMI existed, before T2 existed, before Freeview HD was specced. Who cares, it's cool innit :p.
 
Last edited:
reference 4k

4K demo streams in technology stores run at around 50mbps, blu ray usually run at around 28mbps, so you can only imagine the detail lost in a 15-20 mbps stream that fluctuates for 4k, like a poster above mentions, if you sit approximately 8 to 10 ft away from a 1080p 55" screen you probably wouldn't see much difference between that and a 4k screen. If you do however go for a 4k screen please make sure it has the hdmi 2 standard port, usually you only get one but this ensures you get the better refresh rate at 60hz, otherwise if it's only 1.4 hdmi connection in the tv you will only get a 30hz refresh rate. Imagine the entertainment you could have with the £1000 saved over a 4k screen like games machine/pc/umpteen films in blu ray.Regards, Phil.
 
4k is a waste of time. Launch of revised Apple TV will revive it for a while, but the format is as good as dead. Too early, too interim.
 
I just love the anger that brands bring out of people.

New technology always seems to have two sides, very much like a war......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom