• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

43" TV - Is 4K required?

thejunglegod

thejunglegod

Golden Member
So I am planning to buy a 43" TV and I'm really confused on whether I should go for 4K or just settle for the 1080p full HD version. You know being 43 inches and all I don't really think that the 4K is worth it. Any suggestions?
 
for a 43" screen, you would need to be insanely close to really benefit from 4k, so I would not consider that a factor.

Rough estimate chart:
Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg
 
Personally I don't believe the charts because there's such a wide range of what people are sensitive to. Still, in 2016, I am having to replace composite cables with HDMI cables for people on their 50" HDTV's. There are some people who have no idea about PQ & think "big = good", even if they're running VHS tapes over a yellow RCA jack on a 1080p flat-screen.

I have a 43" 4K in my kitchen & it's awesome. Works great as both a computer monitor & for watching stuff while I'm cooking. For reference, I have the Insignia model with the Roku built-in from Best Buy & love it.
 
It depends, is the price a wash? In many cases a 4k TV might be almost the same price and you really don't lose anything. However, you shouldn't go shopping specifically for a 4k TV in that size range because most of them will be very low end. So what do I mean? If a 1080p TV is $400 and a 4k TV is $450 you don't lose anything by spending the extra $50 and you gain resolution. However if you go looking for a 4k TV you'll generally find that anything under 55" will be extremely low end and may not have all the features of more expensive and larger sets like HDR, smart apps, bt.2020 color space support etc.
 
BurnItDwn said:
I would consider 4K for a 40ish inch screen if it was sitting on my desk acting as a monitor, otherwise, waste.
Click to expand...

Disagree with it being a waste (from personal eyes-on experience) for one reason: more pixels. Low-end 1080p sets can look like utter crap. My dad previously had a 50" Coby with super muddy black levels (among other issues). He has a 55" 4K Insignia now that looks absolutely amazing. My 43" 4K Insignia looks fantastic...the extra number of pixels solves a lot of PQ issues on cheapie 1080p sets. Even Sceptre & Seiki 4K sets look pretty decent. Hard to argue with a 55" 4K for $349:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sceptre-U550CV-U-55-4K-Ultra-HD-2160p-60Hz-LED-HDTV-4K-x-2K/46784939
 
There is no reason not to get a 4K set right now unless you are trying to seriously nickel and dime, even if for no other reason than the fact that a 4K set will accept a 4K source, which will always look a lot better than a 1080p souce, whether it's HDR or not HDR. So even if you can't tell the different in resolution, color accuracy will be far superior on a 4K set.
 
Kaido, don't mash up PQ and pixel density. You know damn well the two are not related.

I have excellent vision but like others have said, unless you're up close to the set it's a total waste at that size.
 
NutBucket said:
Kaido, don't mash up PQ and pixel density. You know darn well the two are not related.

I have excellent vision but like others have said, unless you're up close to the set it's a total waste at that size.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I've put in nearly two dozen 4K UHD televisions this year, including budget Sceptre, Seiki, and Insigina models (including a 43" Best Buy model in my own home), and have yet to find a brand that looks like crap. Whereas I've seen plenty of 1080p sets, particularly the cheapie models, that look absolutely horrible...muddy blacks, bad colors, etc. Maybe they exist, I don't know. All I know is that out of the literally dozens of 4K TV's I've installed, they all have pretty great PQ thanks to the extra pixels, no matter the brand name.

That doesn't mean that every 4K TV out there has eye-popping picture quality. The best TV I've seen so for is the 75" Sony X940D with HDR...but hardly any 4K sets stack up to that level of PQ (in fact, I didn't even like a lot of the other HDR-enabled sets I saw). My point is that the extra pixels in 4K televisions give even budget brands an image quality boost; basically, you can buy a cheap 4K TV & not get a complete pile of garbage, like you might if you got a low-end 1080p set.
 
I think it is more accurate then, to say a low-end 4k set typically has better PQ than a low-end 1080p set.

What do you think?

Honestly, if I was to run out and buy a TV today I'd likely get a 1080p set with a full-array backlight.
 
NutBucket said:
I think it is more accurate then, to say a low-end 4k set typically has better PQ than a low-end 1080p set.

What do you think?

Honestly, if I was to run out and buy a TV today I'd likely get a 1080p set with a full-array backlight.
Click to expand...

Yes, although I'd modify it to say way better PQ than a low-end 1080p set. Low-end 1080p sets can look like TN panels on cheap laptops, whereas all of the 4K sets I've worked with look equivalent to IPS (or better).

That's not to say 4K is perfect. A lot of content looks either like a lower-res Youtube blown up fullscreen or else over-sharped to the point of being aliased (especially cartoons), but surprisingly, a lot of 1080p content looks just fine. I've found with 4K, the further you sit away, the better the picture looks in terms of upscaling.
 
NutBucket said:
So if you sit further away what's the point ? LOL

I want big and in your face!
Click to expand...

Yeah...and honestly...4K is great, but I'm not blown away by it. I think 1080p is good enough. 4K just adds more detail to an already clear picture.

The main driver right now, imo, is that you can pick up a cheap set & still get great PQ. Also fwiw, the Insignia Roku models have, by far, the best TV speakers I have ever heard. Loud & clear, which is just fantastic if you're not adding an aftermarket speaker system.
 
I figure until 4k Blu-Ray isn't super expensive it's pointless. Streaming 4k is just a "feel-good" to justify the extra cost of the TV 😉
 
NutBucket said:
I figure until 4k Blu-Ray isn't super expensive it's pointless. Streaming 4k is just a "feel-good" to justify the extra cost of the TV 😉
Click to expand...

Streaming HDR and there's no comparison. HDR is the real show here, the resolution alone is marginally better than 1080p. Lots of HDR content via streaming sources is absolutely stunning.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Streaming HDR and there's no comparison. HDR is the real show here, the resolution alone is marginally better than 1080p. Lots of HDR content via streaming sources is absolutely stunning.
Click to expand...

I agree. Having used both, HDR is where it's at. I'd be perfectly happy with a quality 1080p HDR set, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top