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

[Zeze]

Can Bluray media handle 4K?

What is the typical full 1080p movie + typical extras take up in current Bluray in %?

 

[Riverhound777]

We are still a few years off, but you have to start somewhere. I'll be keeping my 7 year old Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M happily until something like this comes down to around $2k.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-65EF9500-oled-4k-tv

 

[purbeast0]

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

you remember when dvds used to look "good"?

don't spoil yourself by watching real HD content because then normal cable will start to look like dvds compared to blurays.

 

[spacejamz]

Can Bluray media handle 4K?

What is the typical full 1080p movie + typical extras take up in current Bluray in %?

Found this article....

http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/

Although 4K Blu-ray doesn't require larger disc capacity, they would benefit from it -- and that's something else the association is working on.

"The expected capacity will probably be the 66 and 100GB versions," Martin said. "UHD content, which may include higher frame rates and greater color gamut, might require more disc space. We want the extended Blu-ray format to be as robust as possible and be prepared to handle future demand of filmmakers and content providers...The goal will be to always have one movie on one disc."

The new 4K Blu-ray drive players will be able to extract data from discs at 82 megabits per second for 50GB discs, 108Mbps for 66GB discs, and 128Mbps for 100GB discs. The technology quadruples the number of pixels from 1,920x1,080 pixels with today's HD to 3,820x2,160 pixels with UHD.

For each frame of 4K Blu-ray video, the association expects significant image-quality improvements. Many experts are skeptical that people watching TV at ordinary TV viewing distances have sharp enough vision to tell the difference between today's 1080p HD video and 4K video -- also called Ultra HD or UHD. Matsuda, though, believes he can based on side-by-side comparisons, and certainly the TV industry is gradually moving that direction.

 

[Jaskalas]

We are still a few years off, but you have to start somewhere. I'll be keeping my 7 year old Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M happily until something like this comes down to around $2k.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-65EF9500-oled-4k-tv

That looks good, but will have to see it in action at the store.
And... yeah, $2k is the sweet spot.

 

[SlitheryDee]

One thing I could do with one is play games in 4k from my HTPC. Of course that would likely mean I'd have to make a $500-$600 graphics card purchase in addition to buying the TV, but it's probably the single most important use I could get out of it. 4K video content really isn't a priority for me right now.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

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.

I have a 4k tv and can attest to this. 1080P content looks great on it. High quality blu-rays look especially good.

As for why I bought it - the answer is because I could and I wanted a bigger tv.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Can Bluray media handle 4K?

Sure, at Netflix bit rates. You can always chose to ruin the quality of content by prioritizing resolution over bitrate. Luckily those who release physical copies of digital media don't like that idea, and soon we will have 4K Blu Rays with more space for that reason.

To answer your original question though:

4K TVs are useful for a number of things at this point. Gamers with high-end SLI rigs can use 4K tvs today, as can anyone that looks at a lot of photos on their TV. Personally my favorite thing about having a 4K screen in the kitchen is the higher PPI makes text MUCH more legible, which allows me to have a Tony Stark-esc infotainment setup via RSS feeds.

4K is not very useful yet for watching video content, the only impressive 4K stuff out there outside of Netflix and Directv are youtube, 4K TV demos, and time lapsed photos. Unless you play ALL your 1080p content on a PC rig with a GTX 960 or greater running Mad VR perfectly configured then the content WILL look worse than on the best 1080p TVs. Built in 4K tv scalers so far are crap, Mad VR has shown me how much better 1080p content could COULD look at 4K but who knows when the industry (outside of Oppo) will catch up to that point. Maybe by the time 4K Blu Rays are everywhere and x265 (or whatever standard beats it) decoders are in all entertainment devices the industry will finally put a scaler in the TV worth paying extra for.

If someone asked me for advice on what TV to buy if they would be mostly watching TV or movies (and their budget wasn't minimum) I would have only one answer: Either get a LG OLED or don't buy a TV.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-55-class-54-5-8-diag--oled-curved-1080p-smart-3d-hdtv-black/7846019.p

$2000 for 55 inches at 1080p, and so much better than anything else on the market for video (including every 4K TV except the LG 4K OLED) it isn't even funny. The problem with most 4K tvs isn't the 4K, it is inferior LED technology that the panel is based on.

 

[mmntech]

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.

Up until earlier this year a lot of displays shipped with HDMI 1.4, and could only output 4K at 30 Hz. I believe a lot of the cheaper off brand ones still do.

 

[NutBucket]

Is there a 4k set with a full-array LED backlight? It's too bad "thin-ness" took priority over PQ. Like it really matters if your TV is 2" thick vs. .75" or whatever those ultra thin sets are. But I guess fewer LEDs means less cost....

 

[spacejamz]

Up until earlier this year a lot of displays shipped with HDMI 1.4, and could only output 4K at 30 Hz. I believe a lot of the cheaper off brand ones still do.

My Vizio 70" (living room) and LG 55" (bedroom) that I bought last year both have a single HDMI 2.0 port (the rest of the ports on both TV's are HDMI 1.4...

 

[spacejamz]

Is there a 4k set with a full-array LED backlight? It's too bad "thin-ness" took priority over PQ. Like it really matters if your TV is 2" thick vs. .75" or whatever those ultra thin sets are. But I guess fewer LEDs means less cost....

The Vizio does...

http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-P702ui-B3-70-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B00LX4OOOA/


Full Array LED Technology.

A brilliant LED backlight evenly distributes LEDs across the entire screen for superior light uniformity, more color consistency, industry defining contrast and a more responsive picture.

 

[mrrman]

I still dont see the point of these TV's...no interest at all

 

[NutBucket]

I don't have anything against Vizio but it's sad they're the only ones building a full-array set.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

It was as cheap as any other TV in that size range. I bought a 60" Samsung recently. Holy crap the picture is amazing!

My old TV was a 50" Samsung DLP set that was 15 years old. It was time to upgrade.

 

[dullard]

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?

I haven't purchased one yet, since my TV is still running strong and is fairly new. But I wish that I had a 4K TV (or better).

I only use my TV for watching TV a little tiny bit. Maybe twice a month. But I have it on all the time for photo slideshows. Basically, it is a giant piece of art on my wall filled with memories. I also use it for internet and as my main music system (HTPCs are great multitaskers).

4K TV is about 4096x2160 pixels (models vary a bit). That works out to be 8.8 megapixels. A 1080p TV is only 2.07 megapixels. Even cameras that are years old take photos that are far over 2.07 MP. That means my 1080p TV compresses the heck out of the photos in the slideshows.

Sure, from 25 feet away in the kitchen, I can't tell the difference. But my couch is close enough that I can see the compression. When I have parties over, several of the chairs are just a foot or so away. And I frequently walk up much closer to it when discussing a particular photo that might randomly appear. I'd much rather have a 18 MP TV for my SLR (or even 21 MP for my cell phone camera).

You need to expand your thinking. How many people do you know that take home videos of children with their cell phones? More and more, those cell phone videos are all 4K. TV sets aren't just for watching canned TV shows.

 

[mikeford]

I use a HTPC to source media for the AV system, so works well with a PC will mean more than absolute resolution. Streaming formats will mean more to me than physical media like some new BluRay type.

 

[Homerboy]

I'm still loving my 3D TV that I was told was going to be all the rage!!! ()

(for the record, I never bought a 3D TV)

 

[DAPUNISHER]

One thing I could do with one is play games in 4k from my HTPC. Of course that would likely mean I'd have to make a $500-$600 graphics card purchase in addition to buying the TV, but it's probably the single most important use I could get out of it. 4K video content really isn't a priority for me right now.

Cograts on winning today's internets; gaming was the correct answer.

Fyi, Amazon is doing interest free 2 year financing with their store cc, on select 4K sets right now. Tempted to pull the trigger on the VIZIO M65-C1. Prime members get an extra $50 off which covers more than half the tax in Fl. Under $70 for 23 months that way. I threatened to cut the cord with Uverse, so they dropped my bill by $80, I's never miss the money this way. :hmm:

 

[mnewsham]

4K TV is about 4096x2160 pixels

That is the 4k standard used by the film industry, I am not aware of any TVs that support that resolution. 3840x2160 is 16:9 4k, and it is the 4k that is used in TV panels.

 

[StrangerGuy]

~40" 4K is already cheap enough if I wanted to buy a brand new TV, but I can totally see how the average consumer with already with FHD TVs isn't going to bother 4K until their TVs break or 4K prices go really low.

 

[dullard]

That is the 4k standard used by the film industry, I am not aware of any TVs that support that resolution. 3840x2160 is 16:9 4k, and it is the 4k that is used in TV panels.

Point taken. That is then 8.3 MP. Still not enough for uncompressed photos.

 

[mnewsham]

I'm still loving my 3D TV that I was told was going to be all the rage!!! ()

(for the record, I never bought a 3D TV)

except that isn't even close to the same thing... did you consider the switch from 480p to 720p/1080p to be a gimmick? Its an increase of resolution, 3D was obviously just a gimmick. The increase from 1080p to 2160p is a straight up increase in the resolution, more pixels means crisper image. Sure it wont be as directly noticeable as the jump from 480 to 1080, but with 4k content you can easily see how it looks better than 1080p when directly compared, and I dont think anyone will complain when 4k becomes the standard in 4 years and it will be a bitch to even find a 1080p tv. Just as people don't bitch that it's hard to find 480p TVs new in 2015.

 

[JSt0rm]

4k will allow us all to have over 100" screens in the home. Right now 100" 1080p isn't gonna look good unless you are far from it. Look at any picture of people's serious home entertainment rigs and you will see the problem is small panels compared to the size of the room and sound. Sure they can use a projector for a big image but it won't look great because of it just being a blown up 1080p.

 

[NutBucket]

That's also because people are cheap and/or don't understand that you need a big screen to enjoy watching it. When most people see our 65" TV (which we have about 9' from the sofa) they think it's too close when in reality that's proper viewing distance for good source material.