If you buy a 4K/UHD TV today.. what's the point?

[Zeze]

4K/UHD isn't even in early adopter stage. They've been out well over a year and prices are quite affordable for general consumer market.

But those who buy them today... can you help me understand why?

There's no 4K content on cable/dish/netflix/webstreaming (99% of viewing). Hell, it's 2015, they don't even max out 1080p yet.

The unbelievable quality of Bluray is only 1080p still.

So those of you with 4K/UHD TV, what do you use it for? Some occasional rogue clips?

Genuinely curious & see if I'm missing something.

 

[NutBucket]

You're not missing anything. I think the only real reason to buy one is manufacturers are now throwing R&D dollars at improving the 4k panels but not so much the 1080p panels. So theoretically it's probably going to give you a better picture overall.

However, I'll be looking hard at OLED when the time comes to buy a new TV. I'd be perfectly happy with a 1080p OLED

 

[Sonikku]

Makes a heck of a workspace monitor. Beats networking several smaller screens together.

 

[Zeze]

Makes a heck of a workspace monitor. Beats networking several smaller screens together.

Well, that's of course.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I believe DirecTV already has limited 4K programming, and 4K blu ray will be out this year. Personally I am still very happy with my Samsung F8500, but my next set will definitely be 4K. My fiancee works for Best Buy and there are some great deals to be had . . .

 

[brainhulk]

I wonder if early adopters will get screwed because of backwards incompatibility when the format gets finalized (newer hdmi, or plug altogether?)

I have a 120" projection screen and I genuinely want a 4k projector. They have been coming down in price but I am holding off because of the uncertainty.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I wonder if early adopters will get screwed because of backwards incompatibility when the format gets finalized (newer hdmi, or plug altogether?)

I have a 120" projection screen and I genuinely want a 4k projector. They have been coming down in price but I am holding off because of the uncertainty.

I would think as long as everything is HDCP 2.2 you should be OK. We shall see . . .

 

[Fanatical Meat]

4K/UHD isn't even in early adopter stage. They've been out well over a year and prices are quite affordable for general consumer market.

But those who buy them today... can you help me understand why?

There's no 4K content on cable/dish/netflix/webstreaming (99% of viewing). Hell, it's 2015, they don't even max out 1080p yet.

The unbelievable quality of Bluray is only 1080p still.

So those of you with 4K/UHD TV, what do you use it for? Some occasional rogue clips?

Genuinely curious & see if I'm missing something.

zero point zero

 

[NutBucket]

The early 4k sets came with an interface "box" that manufacturers claimed would be upgradeable as new signaling standards come to market. I have no idea how that will turn out in the long run.

And DirecTV for 4K? What a joke. Their 1080p currently looks like crap (as does any other pay TV provider) so how will 4k look any better?

 

[spacejamz]

From my anecdotal experience, my vizio 70" 4k picture quality is much better than the sharp 70" 1080p aquos it replaced (with the same sources - PS3, Direct TV, etc)....

It is not just about the pixels...4k has more color depth (YMMV based on your panel quality and TV settings though)....

 

[NutBucket]

Exactly, the panel itself is probably better independent of pixel density. This being the exact reason I don't want to buy an LCD.

 

[Sonikku]

From my anecdotal experience, my vizio 70" 4k picture quality is much better than the sharp 70" 1080p aquos it replaced (with the same sources - PS3, Direct TV, etc)....

It is not just about the pixels...4k has more color depth (YMMV based on your panel quality and TV settings though)....

Wouldn't a 1080p source stretched to fit 4k however look as fuzzy as 480p upscaled to 1080p? I know whenever I saw the Nintendo Wii games playing on a 1080p kiosk in the store that they always looked like shit.

 

[KeithP]

But those who buy them today... can you help me understand why?

Well, the simple answer would seem to be that they need a new TV now and not later and they want the most advance set possible to avoid a upgrade again later.

Another factor might be that the people buying these TVs have enough disposable income that money isn't that much of a factor to them and they want the latest and greatest.

Personally I am happy that there are a lot of these people out there. It helps new technology to be adopted and drives prices down.

-KeithP

 

[mnewsham]

Wouldn't a 1080p source stretched to fit 4k however look as fuzzy as 480p upscaled to 1080p? I know whenever I saw the Nintendo Wii games playing on a 1080p kiosk in the store that they always looked like shit.

3840x2160 is directly divisible to 1920x1080, so no it should look either identical, or even better.

480p is a 4:3 ratio, so upscaling 480p to 1080p is not a direct 1:1 so it doesn't upscale as well.

 

[purbeast0]

it's all marketing. general consumers are stupid. they will think they are watching 4k content just because they have a 4k tv.

it's the same as people who bought hdtv's back in the day and would hook their normal cable boxes up to it and stretch the picture and be like OMG HD IS AMAZING!!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

3840x2160 is directly divisible to 1920x1080, so no it should look either identical, or even better.

It should, but it depends on the scaler used in the panel. Just because it should directly translate to a "these 4 pixels will represent 1 pixel" setup doesn't mean that it always will, and you can certainly find cases of ghosting and artifacting in panels that have poor scalers (moreso in the extremely early days of 4K sets).

As to the OP's question, people buy these for the same reason people have bought anything, ever; to impress their poorer friends.

 

[Sonikku]

3840x2160 is directly divisible to 1920x1080, so no it should look either identical, or even better.

480p is a 4:3 ratio, so upscaling 480p to 1080p is not a direct 1:1 so it doesn't upscale as well.

480p isn't always a 4:3 ratio. Games like F Zero GX for instance were in widescreen and 480p. I think the resolution was 854x480 instead of 640x480 or something like that.

 

[purbeast0]

I believe DirecTV already has limited 4K programming, and 4K blu ray will be out this year. Personally I am still very happy with my Samsung F8500, but my next set will definitely be 4K. My fiancee works for Best Buy and there are some great deals to be had . . .

no chance directTV has true 4k content. they don't even have the bandwidth for trud HD. yes i know they launched a new satelite, but i still don't believe it has the bandwidth for true 4k content. probably some compressed mess just like hd is outside of blurays.

 

[mnewsham]

It should, but it depends on the scaler used in the panel. Just because it should directly translate to a "these 4 pixels will represent 1 pixel" setup doesn't mean that it always will, and you can certainly find cases of ghosting and artifacting in panels that have poor scalers (moreso in the extremely early days of 4K sets).

As to the OP's question, people buy these for the same reason people have bought anything, ever; to impress their poorer friends.

Yes, it SHOULD look the same or better, I personally wouldn't invest in a 4k set for another year or two because I dont expect early panels to be problem free

 

[mmntech]

4K Bluray is supposed to come out sometime next year. I still fail to see the point though as you need a fairly large screen, or need to sit awfully close, to take advantage of it.

4K makes more sense for computers if you're working with high resolution images or video.

Is HDMI 2.0 common now on 4K displays or is the industry still lagging?

The early 4k sets came with an interface "box" that manufacturers claimed would be upgradeable as new signaling standards come to market. I have no idea how that will turn out in the long run.

Just like with those early CRT "HD Ready" sets that weren't quite 1080i because the picture tubes were too small.

And DirecTV for 4K? What a joke. Their 1080p currently looks like crap (as does any other pay TV provider) so how will 4k look any better?

One thing that puzzles me is why satellite and cable providers, in this day and age, still offer a ton of channels in SD. I suppose it's to offer backwards compatibility with older set top boxes, but it must waste a ton of bandwidth.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yes, it SHOULD look the same or better, I personally wouldn't invest in a 4k set for another year or two because I dont expect early panels to be problem free

Yeah, and there's basically no content, and no guarantee that a new HDMI standard won't make your TV obsolete when content actually starts being produced... so, yeah, getting a 4K set now is silly.

They look nice though.

 

[spacejamz]

Wouldn't a 1080p source stretched to fit 4k however look as fuzzy as 480p upscaled to 1080p? I know whenever I saw the Nintendo Wii games playing on a 1080p kiosk in the store that they always looked like shit.

All I can tell you is that that Vizio' picture blows away the Aquos hands down and I tweaked the picture settings as best as I could with a calibration disk....

 

[Sonikku]

Might just be a better tv then. I know if you stack a Kuro next to most other tv's, even in the same resolution, the Kuro looks much better.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Is HDMI 2.0 common now on 4K displays or is the industry still lagging?

I was under the impression that HDMI 2.0 was the only standard that supports 4K @ 60 Hz and audio on a single cable, so I would assume every current 4K set has it.

 

[NutBucket]

no chance directTV has true 4k content. they don't even have the bandwidth for trud HD. yes i know they launched a new satelite, but i still don't believe it has the bandwidth for true 4k content. probably some compressed mess just like hd is outside of blurays.

OTA HD looks quite good. That + free makes it easy to not pay for cable