A very interesting and informative thread.
Thanks to all those who've contributed so far.
I currently have a 50" Samsung plasma TV.
The picture was fine for our purposes of tv watching. We switched it on one day and a block of horizontal lines appeared across the screen!
We've lived with this for 18 months or so and have been saving some cash to put towards a new set.
The tv is mounted on a chimney breast and we could fit a 55" in its place as the new ones don't have the thicker edge/frame like ours does.
I think most tvs now have very decent picture quality and it's hard to tell the difference between a 4k or SUHD or whatever else they sell with the naked eye.
I'm wondering why I should pay over a grand for one when I can get one for £899 or maybe even less.
I'd like to be able to mirror the screen from my tablet (Samsung) to save having a cable connected. And that's about it really. I don't need bragging rights as I don't care too much about the technical side of things.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
A very interesting and informative thread.
Thanks to all those who've contributed so far.
I currently have a 50" Samsung plasma TV.
The picture was fine for our purposes of tv watching. We switched it on one day and a block of horizontal lines appeared across the screen!
We've lived with this for 18 months or so and have been saving some cash to put towards a new set.
The tv is mounted on a chimney breast and we could fit a 55" in its place as the new ones don't have the thicker edge/frame like ours does.
I think most tvs now have very decent picture quality and it's hard to tell the difference between a 4k or SUHD or whatever else they sell with the naked eye.
I'm wondering why I should pay over a grand for one when I can get one for £899 or maybe even less.
I'd like to be able to mirror the screen from my tablet (Samsung) to save having a cable connected. And that's about it really. I don't need bragging rights as I don't care too much about the technical side of things.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
You should wait for OLED TVs to come down in price.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
Pretty much anything would be an improvement over a TV with horizontal lines across it.
Even if the 4K TV is better you do have to factor the time you're spending watching a broken TV, for most people this would be a no brainer a would get a TV now within their budget. Give it a few years and the expensive TV sets will come down in price anyway.
Pretty much anything would be an improvement over a TV with horizontal lines across it.
Even if the 4K TV is better you do have to factor the time you're spending watching a broken TV, for most people this would be a no brainer a would get a TV now within their budget. Give it a few years and the expensive TV sets will come down in price anyway.
There's no way I could watch a TV with horizontal lines on it.
I couldn't even watch a TV with light vertical banding.
I think most tvs now have very decent picture quality and it's hard to tell the difference between a 4k or SUHD or whatever else they sell with the naked eye.
I'd debate both of those points.
From what I see when I'm out calibrating TVs, my own observations are that as TV size gets larger (with fashion and falling price) then the quality of the TV panel and the image processing behind it becomes exposed.
TV's are certainly brighter, and do appear more colourful, but that doesn't equate to superior picture quality. It's more eye catching in a gaudy way. There's also a continuing trend for manufacturers to throw a whole toolbox of picture "improving" tweaks at every set that comes out. The basic principle is to over tweak something (colour balance being too blue is normally the first thing), then throw in something to "fix" it which then breaks something else; so then it requires another "fix" to mend that, and so on and so on. By the time they've finished the picture looks less like Mona Lisa and more like Widow Twanky.
The image processing is there to deal with de-interlacing and scaling for non-HD sources; detecting the type of original signal between film or video; dealing with coding issues in the signal etc etc. Whilst it is true that image processing can't generate the sort of extra information required to make a true HD image out of a standard definition signal, higher quality processing can do a better job of decoding and presenting what is there to make a cleaner and more stable image in both SD and HD formats.
The difference between 1080p and 4K on a decent 4K TV from something like a games console is immediately apparent. PS4 can render a true 4K image, and the difference isn't hard to spot. The caveat is viewing distance versus screen size.
I'm wondering why I should pay over a grand for one when I can get one for £899 or maybe even less.
The answer is how well the TV does with less than stellar quality source material. The challenge though is how well you're equipped to tell the difference. That's partly based on the setup of the TVs being viewed, and partly to do with your own experience viewing a properly set up TV picture. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Most TV retailers haven't got the experience or even something as basic as a picture setup disc so they're hardly qualified to talk you through why one set is better than another. Once you do find a retailer that knows their onions then you need to know what differentiates a good picture from one that's just 'more' and over-exaggerated.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
For a lot of buyer it's just tick-boxing. They've never really seen a good image, so anything with an impressive spec sheet and a low price will do.
A very interesting and informative thread.
Thanks to all those who've contributed so far.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
There is one thing about "4k" set on sale now ... They can never meet the standards currently being set for UHD1ph 2 which is what major broadcasters are working towards.
I.e high dynamic range, wider color gamut and higher frame rates plus immersive sound.
There is one thing about "4k" set on sale now ... They can never meet the standards currently being set for UHD1ph 2 which is what major broadcasters are working towards.
I.e high dynamic range, wider color gamut and higher frame rates plus immersive sound.
To be fair though, UHD1 phase 2 is years away.
UHD1 phase 1 sets that can handle 10 bit colour and 50p should be a distinct improvement on current HD broadcasts, as long as 10 bit colour is actually broadcast (50p is already announced). I don't know if there will be any improvement in broadcast dynamic range though.
One thing is certain, buyers will definitely have to beware of sets that can handle only the spatial resolution but not the other benefits of UHD1 phase 1!
UHD1 phase 1 sets that can handle 10 bit colour and 50p should be a distinct improvement on current HD broadcasts, as long as 10 bit colour is actually broadcast (50p is already announced). I don't know if there will be any improvement in broadcast dynamic range though.
One thing is certain, buyers will definitely have to beware of sets that can handle only the spatial resolution but not the other benefits of phase 1!
Adding these Wow factors to any broadcast makes for a better picture ....
Some of them were what broadcasters wanted to do in HD ..
But you still need Standards setting if you want interoperability.....
even in HD ....... Although we did work without a spec for gamma OETF until 2011... !
And as the C E industry seems to want "4k" ... It is it likely that they will make HDR or HFR HD sets ?
.so will a broadcaster transmit such HDR HD signal ... And re-equip existing HD systems....
At least UHD sports may have a revenue stream associated with it ...... And IP,delivery means that the platform operator can update STB easily ,,,
Comments
Thanks to all those who've contributed so far.
I currently have a 50" Samsung plasma TV.
The picture was fine for our purposes of tv watching. We switched it on one day and a block of horizontal lines appeared across the screen!
We've lived with this for 18 months or so and have been saving some cash to put towards a new set.
The tv is mounted on a chimney breast and we could fit a 55" in its place as the new ones don't have the thicker edge/frame like ours does.
I think most tvs now have very decent picture quality and it's hard to tell the difference between a 4k or SUHD or whatever else they sell with the naked eye.
I'm wondering why I should pay over a grand for one when I can get one for £899 or maybe even less.
I'd like to be able to mirror the screen from my tablet (Samsung) to save having a cable connected. And that's about it really. I don't need bragging rights as I don't care too much about the technical side of things.
Is it simply the fact that 4k is coming sometime in the future and so people want to say they have a tv that's ready for it, or is there a special need to pay £1700 for a good set?
You should wait for OLED TVs to come down in price.
Pretty much anything would be an improvement over a TV with horizontal lines across it.
Even if the 4K TV is better you do have to factor the time you're spending watching a broken TV, for most people this would be a no brainer a would get a TV now within their budget. Give it a few years and the expensive TV sets will come down in price anyway.
There's no way I could watch a TV with horizontal lines on it.
I couldn't even watch a TV with light vertical banding.
From what I see when I'm out calibrating TVs, my own observations are that as TV size gets larger (with fashion and falling price) then the quality of the TV panel and the image processing behind it becomes exposed.
TV's are certainly brighter, and do appear more colourful, but that doesn't equate to superior picture quality. It's more eye catching in a gaudy way. There's also a continuing trend for manufacturers to throw a whole toolbox of picture "improving" tweaks at every set that comes out. The basic principle is to over tweak something (colour balance being too blue is normally the first thing), then throw in something to "fix" it which then breaks something else; so then it requires another "fix" to mend that, and so on and so on. By the time they've finished the picture looks less like Mona Lisa and more like Widow Twanky.
The image processing is there to deal with de-interlacing and scaling for non-HD sources; detecting the type of original signal between film or video; dealing with coding issues in the signal etc etc. Whilst it is true that image processing can't generate the sort of extra information required to make a true HD image out of a standard definition signal, higher quality processing can do a better job of decoding and presenting what is there to make a cleaner and more stable image in both SD and HD formats.
The difference between 1080p and 4K on a decent 4K TV from something like a games console is immediately apparent. PS4 can render a true 4K image, and the difference isn't hard to spot. The caveat is viewing distance versus screen size.
The answer is how well the TV does with less than stellar quality source material. The challenge though is how well you're equipped to tell the difference. That's partly based on the setup of the TVs being viewed, and partly to do with your own experience viewing a properly set up TV picture. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Most TV retailers haven't got the experience or even something as basic as a picture setup disc so they're hardly qualified to talk you through why one set is better than another. Once you do find a retailer that knows their onions then you need to know what differentiates a good picture from one that's just 'more' and over-exaggerated.
For a lot of buyer it's just tick-boxing. They've never really seen a good image, so anything with an impressive spec sheet and a low price will do.
There is one thing about "4k" set on sale now ... They can never meet the standards currently being set for UHD1ph 2 which is what major broadcasters are working towards.
I.e high dynamic range, wider color gamut and higher frame rates plus immersive sound.
On Chris point re picture quality on larger screens ..... Katy Noland BBC R&D has an interesting white paper "summary of TV viewing conditions "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287
To be fair though, UHD1 phase 2 is years away.
UHD1 phase 1 sets that can handle 10 bit colour and 50p should be a distinct improvement on current HD broadcasts, as long as 10 bit colour is actually broadcast (50p is already announced). I don't know if there will be any improvement in broadcast dynamic range though.
One thing is certain, buyers will definitely have to beware of sets that can handle only the spatial resolution but not the other benefits of UHD1 phase 1!
Adding these Wow factors to any broadcast makes for a better picture ....
Some of them were what broadcasters wanted to do in HD ..
But you still need Standards setting if you want interoperability.....
even in HD ....... Although we did work without a spec for gamma OETF until 2011... !
And as the C E industry seems to want "4k" ... It is it likely that they will make HDR or HFR HD sets ?
.so will a broadcaster transmit such HDR HD signal ... And re-equip existing HD systems....
At least UHD sports may have a revenue stream associated with it ...... And IP,delivery means that the platform operator can update STB easily ,,,