4K televisions are a waste of money

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Draco

Draco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
9,315
Likes
3,004
Points
113
I just bought a 65" 4K LG LED TV. I got 4K content on the computer and on the TV's netflix, the TV's Youtube and a fast internet connection. Since its 2160p; equal to 8 megapixels it has four times as many pixels as 1080p and supposedly a better picture. Yes the picture is great; but 1080p looks great too on my plasma. I think I'm going to return the TV. Its very hard to tell a difference in picture quality.

If you have a few grand to waste then go ahead and buy these 4K TVs but for people who enjoy getting at least some value for their dollar 4K is a total waste IMO. I could see it having some use if its a computer monitor where you are sitting closer than 4 feet. But for a TV I think you need a bigger screen which probably means 100"+ and those are only going to be a projector. Maybe an 80" screen would have some benefit, maybe not. But at 65" and smaller for any TV 4K is not worth paying extra for.
 
How many times did you look at 4K screens in the stores before buying?

Did you stand about as far away from the screen as your couch is from your TV?
 
To be honest how much can your eye actually notice. Maybe a Hawk would have a better idea?

Fact is, there comes a moment in picture quality that is as far as you need to go. The only thing else to look at would be how quickly it can refresh. If you get blazing fast refresh, then you will be able to watch things at a much higher frame per second.

Second, you would be able to zoom in on things with much higher quality I guess. Maybe that's good for forensic evidence or something.

Whatever the case, my Samsung LCD TV works just fine for me.
 
Not only does UHD have more pixels, it has more color resolution. The more pixels make a huge difference when watching 3D. Current 3D TVs use half the 1080P resolution for each eye. With UHD, you get full 1080P for each eye.

Sitting 8' away from a 65" UHD TV, you may not fully appreciate the UHD resolution, but you should see something that's in between HD and UHD.

Netflix and YouTube compress the video to a fairly low quality (compared to true UHD). If you're expecting it to be perfect now, you naturally will be disappointed.

Having been an early adopter of HD, I remember finding any actual HD content was a treat.

To this day, not all HD content is 1080P. ABC broadcasts in 720P, CBS 1080i, FOX 720P, NBC 1080i, the CW 1080i, PBS 1080i, USA 1080i, ESPN (SPORTS!) 720P, etc.

720P upscaled to UHD is adding a lot of pixels to the picture to make it fill the screen.
 
What Denny said, and besides the fact there is no real 4k content, the real benefit to 4k screen size. Im thinking you need 100 inch + for a screen, thats when standard HD starts getting a little choppy.
 
I'm waiting for Black Friday to buy a Samsung curved. I've also turned away from the 4k option, saving some cash and staying with 1080. But then again, we still like watching some of our 3D content.
 
it might've been the lighting, b/c I had them tune a the flat screen and curved to the same settings. Colors (due to the dual-panel?) were a bit more vibrant, but you were getting some depth effect without even the screen.

And when you live with a designer, you have to make some acquiescence for art/design, sometimes.

But I'll check it out. Still have some time.
 
Read the reviews. That's the best advice I can give.
 
magnifier661 said:
To be honest how much can your eye actually notice. Maybe a Hawk would have a better idea?

Fact is, there comes a moment in picture quality that is as far as you need to go. The only thing else to look at would be how quickly it can refresh. If you get blazing fast refresh, then you will be able to watch things at a much higher frame per second.

Second, you would be able to zoom in on things with much higher quality I guess. Maybe that's good for forensic evidence or something.

Whatever the case, my Samsung LCD TV works just fine for me.
Click to expand...

MAGS after Apple releases a 4K TV:

"ZOMG, ITS A MUST HAVE! CHANGED MY LIFE, MAN!"
:MARIS61:
 
This still picture may not do it justice.

know-about-4k-ultra-hd-full-hd-1080p-vs-4k-ultra-hd.jpg


What UHD really represents is true theater quality video in the home. By 2012, all of AMC theaters' systems were upgraded to 4K/UHD.

I believe this is a new thing. All along, theaters had much better sound and picture. The last couple/three decades, home theater sound has basically caught up with theater quality, but not the picture.

Theaters may go to 8K displays, but it's questionable that people will perceive much of a difference from 4K.
 
Have you seen the 5K iMac up close?

In true 5K resolution (with everything rendered really tiny)?
 
Denny Crane said:
This still picture may not do it justice.

know-about-4k-ultra-hd-full-hd-1080p-vs-4k-ultra-hd.jpg


What UHD really represents is true theater quality video in the home. By 2012, all of AMC theaters' systems were upgraded to 4K/UHD.

I believe this is a new thing. All along, theaters had much better sound and picture. The last couple/three decades, home theater sound has basically caught up with theater quality, but not the picture.

Theaters may go to 8K displays, but it's questionable that people will perceive much of a difference from 4K.
Click to expand...

I am looking at your image on my 1600 x 1200 monitor Denny. I see a difference but I couldn't put a value on it. But I chuckle at the idea I might see a difference.

Resolution is sort of like response time. If you can't perceive a wait then the response is certainly adequate, and it you can see the detail you need, the resolution is adequate.
 
Denny Crane said:
Have you seen the 5K iMac up close?

In true 5K resolution (with everything rendered really tiny)?
Click to expand...

Not yet. I'm sure it's amazing. Is it amazing enough for me to ditch my current 27" iMac? Not when I use it for only paying bills and talking shit on here.

Now when they come out with the 5k monitors, im down!
 
magnifier661 said:
Not yet. I'm sure it's amazing. Is it amazing enough for me to ditch my current 27" iMac? Not when I use it for only paying bills and talking shit on here.

Now when they come out with the 5k monitors, im down!
Click to expand...

Didn't you buy the $10,000 Mac pro thing? With some 4K Monitors?
:MARIS61:
 
Yeah, 4K TVs aren't worth it until they're worth it with enough content and they fall to under 2 grand. Sales guys were trying to push it like crazy, fuck them.

have you seen those curved TVs by Samsung in the stores? Kind of interesting but again, fuck it. stop watching TV bruhs
 
Draco said:
I just bought a 65" 4K LG LED TV. I got 4K content on the computer and on the TV's netflix, the TV's Youtube and a fast internet connection. Since its 2160p; equal to 8 megapixels it has four times as many pixels as 1080p and supposedly a better picture. Yes the picture is great; but 1080p looks great too on my plasma. I think I'm going to return the TV. Its very hard to tell a difference in picture quality.

If you have a few grand to waste then go ahead and buy these 4K TVs but for people who enjoy getting at least some value for their dollar 4K is a total waste IMO. I could see it having some use if its a computer monitor where you are sitting closer than 4 feet. But for a TV I think you need a bigger screen which probably means 100"+ and those are only going to be a projector. Maybe an 80" screen would have some benefit, maybe not. But at 65" and smaller for any TV 4K is not worth paying extra for.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you wait until Black Friday or Cyber Monday to buy it?
 
Seiki sells a 39" UHD TV for ~$400
 
donkiez said:
What Denny said, and besides the fact there is no real 4k content, the real benefit to 4k screen size. Im thinking you need 100 inch + for a screen, thats when standard HD starts getting a little choppy.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is what I'm agreeing with. If I was using a big projector that was 100" or more then 1080p starts to look choppy. So those sizes would have a huge benefit to 4K.

But at 65" there isn't much of a benefit. 4K for a TV 50" or smaller is a total joke.
 
I'm not even crazy enough to buy a 4k monitor for PC gaming yet...
 
Denny Crane said:
This still picture may not do it justice.

know-about-4k-ultra-hd-full-hd-1080p-vs-4k-ultra-hd.jpg


What UHD really represents is true theater quality video in the home. By 2012, all of AMC theaters' systems were upgraded to 4K/UHD.

I believe this is a new thing. All along, theaters had much better sound and picture. The last couple/three decades, home theater sound has basically caught up with theater quality, but not the picture.

Theaters may go to 8K displays, but it's questionable that people will perceive much of a difference from 4K.
Click to expand...

Theater screens are measured in feet not inches so they need much higher resolutions to have the same sharpness.

That picture is very misleading as it has the 1080p side zoomed in and only at a resolution of a couple hundred pixels. Thats a fraction of what a full high quality 1080p image would actually look like. Not at all applicable to a consumer TV either.

I take pictures with a 20megapixel DSLR camera which has 10x the resolution of 1080p, and over double the resolution of 4K. Those extra pixels can be useful with the right lens and in the right situation; such as cropping a photo. But TV is never cropped. Even with professional quality photos very often there is zero benefit to the extra pixels.
 
I saw one of the 4k curved Samsung tvs at Costco today. I didnt really feel a huge impact from the curved TV. I wonder how many people buy it and say "oh yeah I've got one of those 4k curved tvs", only to be left speechless when asked why.
 
I went with Black Friday pricing on Amazon. When it came down to it (and after spending hours on AVS Forum) I figured I'd go with the Samsung 55" 8700 model, which is curved but also has some of the upgrades between the 8550 ("flat") and the 9000 (flagship-ish) and looks to be more "future-proof" than the 8550 (or less). But I have until Jan 31 to send it back if it doesn't blow me away.

In the perusal, though, I came across TONS of people who were saying that the Oppo 103D blue-ray player (amongst other things) really helped to get better quality upscaled content to the TV, whether Sony, Samsung, etc. I'm pretty interested in it, and wondering if the $500 it'll take to get that is worth dropping a couple of hundred off the TV and getting a lower-rated one and adding the oppo-driven content to it.

Thoughts?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I went with Black Friday pricing on Amazon. When it came down to it (and after spending hours on AVS Forum) I figured I'd go with the Samsung 55" 8700 model, which is curved but also has some of the upgrades between the 8550 ("flat") and the 9000 (flagship-ish) and looks to be more "future-proof" than the 8550 (or less). But I have until Jan 31 to send it back if it doesn't blow me away.

In the perusal, though, I came across TONS of people who were saying that the Oppo 103D blue-ray player (amongst other things) really helped to get better quality upscaled content to the TV, whether Sony, Samsung, etc. I'm pretty interested in it, and wondering if the $500 it'll take to get that is worth dropping a couple of hundred off the TV and getting a lower-rated one and adding the oppo-driven content to it.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

How often do you watch blu ray disks?

Also, I notice that the player only has HDMI 1.4a, which doesn't do 60Hz.

2014-11-28%20at%2011.18%20AM.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top