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

[Jumpem]

because in order to stream 4k they cut the bitrate to hell so the actual quality is lower, despite a larger resolution. It will be a few years before decent 4k streaming is going to happen.

4k Netflix looks much better than 1080p Netflix and cable. The 4K streams from Netflix are a higher bitrate than the 1080p streams. Decent 4k streaming is already here. I have been quite happy with it since last November actually. As for even higher bitrate UHD Blu-ray comes out later this year.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

The only announced UHD bluray player is from Samsung and it won't be out until early next year, maybe in the spring.

 

[MongGrel]

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.

this, more or less.

I just won't be myself personally.

 

[Lonyo]

Maybe because people don't upgrade their TVs all the time and when they do, buying 4k makes more sense to do now, since then they don't have to buy another one in a couple of years that is 4k?

Or because actually there are places which have 4k available already?

Who buys a new TV every 3 or so years? Which is when I assume you would consider that 4k won't be "early adopter" or pre early adopter.
Considering the price premium currently is minimal, there's no reason to NOT get 4k.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Because you want the TV with the best picture quality today, and the best TV's today are all 4K?

Just like 3D the last couple of years. All the best TV's, such as the last of the Plasmas, were 3D. And Plasmas were the best PQ TV's until they stopped making them, so if you wanted the best-looking TV, you got a 3D Plasma. The fact that it was 3D was irrelevant.

And now, if you want the best PQ TV, you get a 4K.

 

[zCypher]

4k Netflix looks much better than 1080p Netflix and cable. The 4K streams from Netflix are a higher bitrate than the 1080p streams. Decent 4k streaming is already here. I have been quite happy with it since last November actually. As for even higher bitrate UHD Blu-ray comes out later this year.

I think what mnewsham is saying is it will be some time before actual 4K streaming is going to happen. Of course YouTube 4K is going to look better than YouTube 1080, and of course Netflix 4K is going to look better than 1080. They wouldn't exist otherwise. But the point remains that it is a compressed method of delivering the content, and that compression is one way or another a reduction on quality. In order to stream it fluidly to most users, that means accepting a significant reduction in quality. I might be wrong, but I think that's the line of thought, and it wouldn't be wrong, it's also why uncompressed satellite or OTA feed would be better quality than most IPTV 1080.

Having said all that, better is better. I welcome any and all 4K content! Does it justify an upgrade just yet? Depends on you. For me at present time no, because I recently bought a 1080 set, and don't have plans to upgrade again for a little while. There is no doubt that we're going in that direction and that more and more content is being made available though which is great.

 

[Viper GTS]

Let's be clear here, nobody is getting uncompressed video at this point. It's just a matter of degrees. Even Blu-ray is a tiny fraction of what the content was edited at.

For reference:

The network I work for uses 50mb for 720p. That still is highly compressed, but what - double what Netflix is using for 4k? By broadcast standards that is a very lightweight codec, yet it's higher than what Blu-ray offers for 1080p.

So lest anyone get too high and mighty with their 35mb/s Blu-ray... It still isn't anything compared to a pro format. And even the pro formats are nowhere near uncompressed (99.999% anyway).

We generate over 30TB of archive per day at 50mb/s, higher quality is pointless when it's going to get destroyed by the distribution channels before it ever gets to your home.

Viper GTS

 

[poofyhairguy]

And now, if you want the best PQ TV you get a LG OLED, either at 1080p or at 4K, because black levels are much more important when it comes to picture quality than resolution.

Fixed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The 4K streams from Netflix are a higher bitrate than the 1080p streams.

That isn't saying much, the 1080p Netflix streams are garbage compared to a real Blu Ray.

Netflix streams (480p, 1080p or 4k) are such low bitrates that action scenes are often blurry messes. I personally can't stand to watch anything but their original (and slow moving) dramas on Netflix. 4K House of Cards does look nice on Netflix, for the same reason photos looks nice at 4k- a lot of still images.

 

[Jumpem]

That isn't saying much, the 1080p Netflix streams are garbage compared to a real Blu Ray.

Netflix streams (480p, 1080p or 4k) are such low bitrates that action scenes are often blurry messes. I personally can't stand to watch anything but their original (and slow moving) dramas on Netflix. 4K House of Cards does look nice on Netflix, for the same reason photos looks nice at 4k- a lot of still images.

98% of TV watching is not Blu-ray though. It is going to be cable/satellite or Netflix. And for that I find the quality comparable, or perhaps a little better, than FiOS. The bitrate may be lower than Blu-ray, but the detail from 4k streams, notably in people's faces, is amazing.

 

[mmntech]

because in order to stream 4k they cut the bitrate to hell so the actual quality is lower, despite a larger resolution. It will be a few years before decent 4k streaming is going to happen.

HEVC/h.265 will change that. It stores video data more efficiently than h.264/AVC without sacrificing as much image quality at lower bitrates. I've encoded a few of my old DVDs in HEVC to save space on my HTPC, and they look great.

There's a few problems holding it back though. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia all make chips with built in HEVC decoding. However, there are no ARM based chips to my knowledge that support it. Which is what powers a lot of streaming boxes these days.

Secondly, software manufacturers haven't reached a consensus on what the next gen video codec should be. I was reading the other day that a lot of big software and streaming companies want a royalty-free alternative to HEVC. Cisco is working on just that, while Google is pushing VP9. I'd peg Google's as being a strong contender on the streaming front if they can improve efficiency. It's already widely supported and has proven itself out in the wild for a few years now. Ultimately depends on whether Microsoft and Apple want to play ball with Big G.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Ultimately depends on whether Microsoft and Apple want to play ball with Big G.

MS supports Google. Their Edge browser will use VP9:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-vp9-codec-coming-to-microsofts-edge-browser/

 

[child of wonder]

I was looking to buy a new large TV a couple months ago for our basement and was considering 4K. But when I realized not only did I need to shell out >$2,000 I'd also need to get a new receiver that supports 4K content, 4K made a lot less sense financially. In the end I found a great 70" 1080p TV for $1,200 (yay Best Buy movers coupon!) and the picture looks awesome.

Maybe in a few years I'll look into 4K again.

 

[Sonikku]

If I was getting a display for the basement I'd probably be looking at a HD projector. Better value per inch. But to each their own.

 

[videogames101]

Because all the high quality sets are 4k, no one is making good 1080p panels except LG's oled.

 

[purbeast0]

How is much improved picture quality just marketing?

because it's not really streaming 4k.

 

[smackababy]

because it's not really streaming 4k.

Don't bother with this. It is always the same people who claim super HD on Netflix is just as good as Blu-ray HD.

 

[Jumpem]

because it's not really streaming 4k.

According to both my TV and receiver it is being streamed at a resolution of 3840x2160.

 

[sao123]

the real problem is there aren't many flagship level 1080P TV's still in production.

 

[Puppies04]

I agree there isn't much point changing your existing tv for a 1080p set but if you need a new one and the price isn't much higher you would be a moran not to get a 4k set.

Which is why I bought one yesterday.

 

[mmntech]

MS supports Google. Their Edge browser will use VP9:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-vp9-codec-coming-to-microsofts-edge-browser/

That's expected. What I did forget to mention though was whether streaming services would be willing to convert. Depends what VP9's DRM is like. I know Netflix has been transitioning to HTML5 containers for video but I don't know what codec they're using.

Don't bother with this. It is always the same people who claim super HD on Netflix is just as good as Blu-ray HD.

Yet Super HD on Netflix is still better than what most cable companies call "HD".

Streaming is going to be the future of 4K, simply because they're the only ones (outside NHK and BBC) that are investing in the technology. Traditional broadcasters are running around like the sky is falling. Slashing budgets, laying people off, and not investing in capital.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I know Netflix has been transitioning to HTML5 containers for video but I don't know what codec they're using.

Netflix and Amazon are using HEVC for 4K. But for both that might just be a stopgap, as they helped form the Alliance for Open Media which exists to undo the MPEG LA monopoly:

http://liliputing.com/2015/09/micro...her-on-next-gen-open-source-media-codecs.html

This new alliance is a real problem for 4K content distribution IMHO. Part of why "HD" spread so quickly is that competing HD codecs (like MPEG2 and VC1) kinda fell away as iPhones and set top devices came with x264 decoders inside. That lead to an economy of scale of cheap decoders, which means my $30 Android stick can play almost any 1080p video perfectly. That plus the fact that many high-end mobile CPUs can play most 1080p content in software by now makes it very hard to not reach 100% compatiblity.

But with 4K depending on what codec your content provider (disk or streaming) uses might really determine what 4K content you have access to. You might need a 4K Blu Ray Player JUST for 4K Blu Rays (with a built-in 10bit HEVC decoder) and something like a Roku 5 just to get Amazon/Netflix (using some VP10-inspired codec). The CPU power needed to decode HEVC content (especially 10 bit stuff) won't be "the standard" in mobile devices for over five years, and that is where a lot of video consumption happens (and where a lot of 4k screens will exist).

It will kinda be a mess. Any early investment in 4K with emphasis on streaming content is kinda like a lottery ticket, you just gotta hope the tech you invested in is what wins out.

 

[Gunbuster]

TV as a PC Monitor. The best use for 4K currently is getting work done. No messing around with multiple monitors just 4 1080P screens worth of desktop for web, office, apps in one place. 40" size is pretty much perfect for at a desk once you get used to it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Can any of these newer sets come somewhat close to matching the PQ of the last gen high end plasma from Samsung and Panasonic? If so, which brands/models are the ones that at least come close or at least seem to be leading the charge in trimming the gap?

 

[rsutoratosu]

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

This is the main reason I didn't buy one last dec. looks like I wont either this year.

The only reason was my 5 yr old samsung Led/lcd was turning off by itself last summer, was going to replace it once it died. It never died so I never bought a replacement.

The only thing im looking forward to is going from 55 to 75 or 8x.