• 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.

Ultra Hd/4k televisions, Do You Own One?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I don't mind getting one later and being a few years behind the bleeding edge.

1) I save loads of £££
2) Standards get settled, none of that HDTV through component and HDMI transition phase
3) More 4K content is a MUST before I get 4K

My current 50" Panasonic plasma is doing an awesome job. I'd have to go bigger to 65" or bigger and it would have to come in at £2k or so. I can't really justify more 😛

Koing
 
DesiPower said:
I agree, I am not buying 4k TV until movies start coming out in 4K disks, not that 4k steam crap but actual physical disks.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping that flash memory becomes so inexpensive that movies will be distributed on USB sticks. Much more convenient than discs.
 
poofyhairguy said:
Vizio has been delivering good value for a while now, they have been my go-to recommendation to whoever can't get plasma because their room is too bright.

With that said, for the money I would MUCH rather have a mid-level 1080p Panasonic Plasma from last year that beats the Vizio 4k in every picture quality category except brightness and a resolution (that you can't take full advantage of without HDMI 2.0).
Click to expand...
Just did a refresh check and the P series will, in fact, have HDMI 2.0 as well as 4K and local dimming.
 
If a 2013 buyer wanted max value they should have hoarded a Panasonic before they were gone like the rest of us. 😉




I am just SOOOO relieved that there is a 4K tv I can recommend. I keep getting the questions and I kept saying "wait, just wait. wait." Now I have an answer.

I can't wait to see XBMC at 4K someday. Fonts will look like an iPad.
 
I don't care for 4K, at least for the next few years or so. I'm more interested flat-panel tech that minimizes motion blur.

motion_blur_from_persistence.png
 
gevorg said:
I don't care for 4K, at least for the next few years or so. I'm more interested flat-panel tech that minimizes motion blur.

motion_blur_from_persistence.png
Click to expand...

Well when a TV is mostly using 24hz TV signals the motion blur of the panel isn't really an issue because the amount of blur already in the source material is far worse. But I tend to agree that 4k isn't of interest until its got 120hz+ with it because I have been convinced its beneficial, but for a TV I don't think it matters.
 
gevorg said:
I don't care for 4K, at least for the next few years or so. I'm more interested flat-panel tech that minimizes motion blur.
Click to expand...

For TVs that tech is Plasma, and 4K basically killed it.

It would be nice if LED/LCDs could get closer to plasma in that category though.
 
I'm in the same boat as some of you. I have a 7 year old 46" Samsung LCD TV. I am looking at upgrading in the next few weeks to a 65". But I am torn between the Sony XBR65X850A which is last years model at a good price, or a non-4K (to be determined) 2014 65" model.
 
DesiPower said:
I agree, I am not buying 4k TV until movies start coming out in 4K disks, not that 4k steam crap but actual physical disks.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even if it's a new format and I need a player, the difference in quality between a compressed 4k stream (even though my internet connection could potentially handle uncompressed streams) and the uncompressed physical copy on a degial media of some type would be worth buying a new player to go with the new UHD TV.
 
no point in 4K even if you have 4K content for it unless you plan on buying an abnormally large screen and/or plan to sit abnormally close to said screen

average viewing distance in NA is something like 10', which means you'll need a screen at least ~85" in size, although ideally we're talking well over 100", and this is assuming 20/20 vision...

4K will be great for the computer monitor industry, but is really pretty pointless for home TVs. We're seeing it pushed now because its easy for LCD tech to be scaled to this level. Instead of producing 4 x 42" 1080p LCD TVs, they can produce a single 4K 84" TV and sell it for more than they could with 4 x 1080p units. LCD tech has pretty much hit a wall with other aspects that actually matter more for image quality. Black levels, contrast, color accuracy, etc, LCD has gone about as far as it can go there, plus those features are harder to advertise for, especially when they've been so disingenuous with the specs from the start. With resolution you can't really fudge the numbers when you can go and actually count the pixels. So people "know" that more pixels is better, and the new units are giving them just that, all while remaining in the same blissfully ignorant state that allowed LCD to win out over superior technology like plasma
 
Except I and others can actually see a quality difference between sets including 4k vs 1080p. Yes I am not the only one in the world who can tell.

Don't assume that because of some random statistic about viewing diatance that nobody will be able to see the quality difference.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Except I and others can actually see a quality difference between sets including 4k vs 1080p. Yes I am not the only one in the world who can tell.

Don't assume that because of some random statistic about viewing diatance that nobody will be able to see the quality difference.
Click to expand...

I'm sitting within the viewing distance required for 4K anyway. I sit very close to my TV so I want 4K to come out and become the standard. We'll see what Nvidia/AMD's offerings are this year and how they deal with 4K gaming. I definitely want to make the jump though by the end of 2015 to 4K gaming if it's within "reason" (Under $600 in graphics cards). Then I guess why not really?

Curious to see how x265 and 4K will play on movie file sizes =D. Might need to drastically rethink how far my 14TB will take me when 4K comes out.
 
Gaming will be harder to do but I hope soon we can do ultra settings in most games at 4k. It will reduce the necessity for AA and increase the overall sharpness.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Gaming will be harder to do but I hope soon we can do ultra settings in most games at 4k. It will reduce the necessity for AA and increase the overall sharpness.
Click to expand...

Imagine trying to use 4K content with the BS caps internet providers are putting on people now.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Except I and others can actually see a quality difference between sets including 4k vs 1080p. Yes I am not the only one in the world who can tell.

Don't assume that because of some random statistic about viewing diatance that nobody will be able to see the quality difference.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a difference. I recently went shopping for a new TV and had no intention of buying a 4K set but after seeing them on display I changed my mind. I wanted a 60" set but once I saw the 65" 4K TV next to the 65" 1080P TV playing the same content there was NO comparison. With the new models coming out I was able to get the 4K TV for basically the same price as the 1080P so there wasn't much of a decision.

Watching normal cable TV content I can definitely see a huge difference. Everyone that has been over and watched my TV says the same thing....they now want a 4K TV. I had my 55" 1080P TV next to the new 65" 4K TV for a few days and the picture quality on the 4K unit was much better...even though it was a lot bigger. I can't complain, I'm happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top