4K TV?

andeyknox

andeyknox

andeyknox

Associate
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Posts
103
I see a lot of people saying OLED > 4k, but is that only for now? will you be upgrading to 4k lets say next year? im in desperate need for a new TV and i dont know whether to go "Future Proof" with a 4k now, because i dont really have the funds to get an OLED then 4k next year to say. Im hoping to have this new TV for years so i dont really want to be changing it after a year or 2 so is it worthwhile to just get a 4k one now? if so which are the best for around 500-700? Thank you.
 
Also i dont really understand the refresh rate on some TVs ive seen a really good samsung one with only 120hz but there was a panasonic one with 900hz?

Sorry read an article online saying the "real" refresh rates
 
Last edited:
I have 3 TVs in mind, please tell me your inputs if theres better!. Im not sure i can post links? so ill write the model numbers:

UN50JS7000FXZA
UN40JU7100FXZA
UN40JU7500FXZA

Can anyone tell me which they'd prefer if they had to choose? There all on sale on the samsung website. One has nano crystal technology which might sound better than it is? but only has 60hz refresh rate i think where the others have 120? I'm looking to play xbox games on it but not primarily i do like to watch sports, films ect just as much. I can live with taking a hit on the games side for picture quality ect. Thanks
 
OLED and 4K isn't a case of one or the other, you can get 4K OLED TVs.

Sorry if you already know this but 4K is a resolution whereas OLED is a screen technology which should give improved picture quality and deeper blacks over current LED TVs.

Problem with 4K and OLED is that both are in their infancy, and at the moment I'm not sure you can get a 40" OLED?

Will you definitely have access to 4k sources for the TV in the future?
 
alx said:
OLED and 4K isn't a case of one or the other, you can get 4K OLED TVs.

Sorry if you already know this but 4K is a resolution whereas OLED is a screen technology which should give improved picture quality and deeper blacks over current LED TVs.

Problem with 4K and OLED is that both are in their infancy, and at the moment I'm not sure you can get a 40" OLED?

Will you definitely have access to 4k sources for the TV in the future?
Click to expand...

Yeah i realised there were 4k OLED but they were way way way out of my price range lol i just need a TV that'll get me through the next 4-5 years and be able to do some of the capabilities of future introductions as my TV is on its way out. Like i want a 4K just for the fact that when it does start coming out i will have a ready TV if you know what i mean? And yes i do plan to have the sources. Thank you for the information though!
 
I personally currently would take a GOOD 1080p screen over 4K especially at your budget. Its not like you won't be able to watch the 4K content you can always compress it. And for the foreseeable future would be available in 1080p anyway.
 
andeyknox said:
Yeah i realised there were 4k OLED but they were way way way out of my price range lol i just need a TV that'll get me through the next 4-5 years and be able to do some of the capabilities of future introductions as my TV is on its way out. Like i want a 4K just for the fact that when it does start coming out i will have a ready TV if you know what i mean? And yes i do plan to have the sources. Thank you for the information though!
Click to expand...

I would look at going a minimum of 48" for 4k tbh. There is some chinese brand that is doing 4k 50" tvs around the 500 mark I think. Hineses or something like that.

A cheap 40" 4k set is going to be fairly ****, and most likely wont get a HDR firmware upgrade when the time comes, so it will be useless unless you can stream 4k via online services. I can't because living in the sticks I can only get 2mb adsl and that very rarely goes above 1mb on speedtest...can't even stream 360p on youtube without buffering. :o

I've just ordered a 55" LG curved 4k set for 1600. Plan is to upgrade to 65" oled 4k when the dust settles a little with all this new tech.

I'd stick with 1080p if your budget is low. You'll get a better quality TV.
 
harry5522 said:
I personally currently would take a GOOD 1080p screen over 4K especially at your budget. Its not like you won't be able to watch the 4K content you can always compress it. And for the foreseeable future would be available in 1080p anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks is there any 1080p sets that you would recommend?
 
Bluecube said:
Is that not the one having serious issues with the Android software?
Click to expand...

Whilst I can't say I have tons of experience with copious amounts of smart TVs the software in it has a few nit picking problems. For instance the inputs all need calibrating individually, this is a double edged sword really as I am glad the settings are not matched on all inputs as I have different settings for my ps4 / PC / raspberry pi ect. But it would be nice to have a option to copy settings for one input to another as one can spent a lot of time delving into the huge array of display properties to calibrate.

The home screen calibration tends not to stick around though this should not be a issue unless you watch all of your media via usb or stream directly to the tv via Netflix or somethings of that nature. Other than these minor gripes the tv has done everything I need well and frankly would take a better quality display above a better operating smart interface. Where some other TVs I have used previously have been a outright disappointment with such terrible picture quality despite there arguably better os the sheer lack of quality of the display ruined those experiences. You will really only spend 2% of your time on the smart screen anyway!

To summarise it to me frankly makes no difference and have had no major complaints about the software at all it works well and I've never experienced any crashing so I really can't fault it.
 
Last edited:
harry5522 said:
Sony KDL-50W805C is highly regarded amongst many people you will be hard pressed to find a screen with similar quality for the cost.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at TVs recently to upgrade my 42" plasma, thing is that 4k tvs aren't that much more expensive than something like a w805c, so to me you might as well buy a 4k one and get at least some future proofing.
 
The average viewer doesn't perceive resolution alone as a significant factor in display quality. Contrast and colour are far more important for casual watching. There was a test done a few years ago at the InfoComm expo to illustrate this.

Resolution without good motion handling (i.e. with bad scaling/deinterlacing) on a panel with a slow response rate and that has poor contrast and patchy brightness (poor uniformity) and where the colours are inaccurate and over-saturated to the point where the picture looks like a flat 2D cartoon is still a rubbish picture. That's what a lot of these budget 4K TVs are offering. It's the same every time there's a resolution step. We saw this particularly acutely in the step to 1080p. A well sorted 1080p TV is a much better investment than a price-fighter 4K TV that is trading on a headline resolution figure and price.

The idea of buying a budget 4K TV now as future-proofing is somewhat flawed logic too unless it supports HDMI 2.0, HDCP2.2 There's also the as yet unsettled question of a 4K TV tuner.

Everyone has their own reasons and motivations to justify whatever upgrade path they decide to take. For some it doesn't matter if their new 4K TV doesn't support High Dynamic Range or a true 4K source when it arrives; so long as they can get 4K Netflix now then that's fine. Others want to PC game at 4K. That's fine so long as the graphics cards in the rig are up to the task. Remember, it's not just the resolution but the frame rate that's important. Just as big an issue though is the slowness of the pixel response rate. TVs are nowhere near as quick as desktop monitors in this respect.

In the end I suspect it comes down to whether a person thinks of a new 1080p TV as dead money when 4K seems tantalisingly close. Personally I'd rather have a great image that's usable now than suffer four years of a poorer image from some hardware that isn't so well supported until it comes time to upgrade again. IMO neither TV will be worth a great deal, so it's not like there'll be a tonne of money coming back from a used 4K TV when the market has moved on and expects HDCP2.2 etc.
 
FurryLemon said:
... it will be useless unless you can stream 4k via online services. I can't because living in the sticks I can only get 2mb adsl and that very rarely goes above 1mb on speedtest...can't even stream 360p on youtube without buffering. :o

I've just ordered a 55" LG curved 4k set for 1600. Plan is to upgrade to 65" oled 4k when the dust settles a little with all this new tech.
Click to expand...


Makes sense, what with the almost complete lack of 4k content available to you.
 
I was in a dilema between the sony 55"805c 1080p tv for £699 or a panasonic 55"tx680b 4k tv for £899 both got good reviews but in the end went for the panny 4k.
 
alx said:
I've been looking at TVs recently to upgrade my 42" plasma, thing is that 4k tvs aren't that much more expensive than something like a w805c, so to me you might as well buy a 4k one and get at least some future proofing.
Click to expand...

Right now as we stand in time if you spend £6-800 on a 4K screen and a 1080p screen the 1080p screen will look much better. The 4K TVs available at the moment lack the refinement that the current 1080p screens have got to the point of. There is barley any content for. 4K as well so to me you might as well get what will give you the best experience for the next years instead of " future proofing" with a screen that looks tacky has no content and the only reason people are impressed by it is because it has a sticker that says 4k
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom