|
||||||||
4K. TV's I there any Point? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 178
|
4K. TV's I there any Point?
I'm considering changing my trusty Panny HD TV to a newer Smart TV, Panasonic again most probably.
As 4k. TV's have dropped dramatically in price, they are now on my radar. The original HD broadcasts were really of superior picture quality and they were downgraded over the following year or two, to save bandwidth I guess. I can't see any broadcasters going for 4k. TV transmissions in the future and is there really any point? they might just as well use go back to the Original quality HD transmissions and we all benefit from better quality HD with our existing HD TV's. What other sources of 4k. could I receive now? enlighten me. Don't do games on line so need for that service. Cheers for any replies. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
I'm considering changing my trusty Panny HD TV to a newer Smart TV, Panasonic again most probably.
As 4k. TV's have dropped dramatically in price, they are now on my radar. The original HD broadcasts were really of superior picture quality and they were downgraded over the following year or two, to save bandwidth I guess. I can't see any broadcasters going for 4k. TV transmissions in the future and is there really any point? they might just as well use go back to the Original quality HD transmissions and we all benefit from better quality HD with our existing HD TV's. What other sources of 4k. could I receive now? enlighten me. Don't do games on line so need for that service. Cheers for any replies. You can get a small amount of 4K programming currently from Netflix and Amazon Prime, with BT Sport supposedly doing a limited 4K service (although I've not heard of anyone actually been able to get it yet ).These are all via the Internet, no broadcasting. Sky are 'probably' releasing a 4K service in the future, possibly initially via the Internet, then followed by proper broadcasting. Presumably VM will be doing similar?, and will have a 4K TiVo in development?. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 178
|
Thanks Nigel, I thought it was just me that can't see the 4k benefits.
![]() ![]() We do watch Netflix but didn't know about their 4k service. If my next chosenTV happens to include 4k. I'll have one but it won't be a priority. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Quote:
Thanks Nigel, I thought it was just me that can't see the 4k benefits.
![]() ![]() We do watch Netflix but didn't know about their 4k service. If my next chosenTV happens to include 4k. I'll have one but it won't be a priority. 4K broadcasting via Satellite (and aerial/cable) is possible and the Astra group are already doing it with really good picture quality on a demo station. Via Freeview (DTT) it's unlikely, according to the Freeview rep, as the amount of broadcasting space it takes up is huge & would cause the number of stations to be reduced, which no one really wants. Cable has the capacity on the network to do it but they never create their own content and just demand they get it at low cost from people that do (Sky/BT) whilst using that to try and undercut the competitors. Once Sky start 4K transmissions, likely to be Sport & movies first, Virgin will no doubt do the same. As it stands now, Netflix/Amazon (I think)/BT 4K streams need a bout 20-25mb constant download stream to give you a 4K image & these images are still nowhere near what 4K UHD images can be with an unrestricted bandwidth or source. Blu-Ray has just been updated to be able to store/playback 4K content at high quality but these new machines may not be out until next year & will be expensive. All in, 4K is worth the extra investment based on 2 criteria, firstly that you sit close enough to the screen, for it's size, to see the benefit (http://content.hwigroup.net/images/a...g-Distance.jpg), and secondly that you will invest in the content to view on it. Without 4K content you are wasting a lot of the extra cost for a 4K set. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
Without 4K content you are wasting a lot of the extra cost for a 4K set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Quote:
Not for that much longer though, it won't be many years until ALL sets are 4K as panel production will be 4K only - although by that time you'll probably also have the option of 8K sets
![]() The most recent other ploy they've got rid of was the "contrast ratio" figures that became ludicrous. It hit a point that it meant nothing any more so they stopped quoting them! |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
I'm considering changing my trusty Panny HD TV to a newer Smart TV, Panasonic again most probably.
As 4k. TV's have dropped dramatically in price, they are now on my radar. The original HD broadcasts were really of superior picture quality and they were downgraded over the following year or two, to save bandwidth I guess. I can't see any broadcasters going for 4k. TV transmissions in the future and is there really any point? they might just as well use go back to the Original quality HD transmissions and we all benefit from better quality HD with our existing HD TV's. What other sources of 4k. could I receive now? enlighten me. Don't do games on line so need for that service. Cheers for any replies. 4k content is relatively good value from Netflix/Amazon, UHD Bluray will most likely be a couple of quid more than Bluray, with machines nowhere near the price of first gen Bluray machines, looking at about £250 upwards. I've have the Panny 65AX902, even though it's not our main screen for viewing (our pj is) I would be more than happy just watching HD on it, so even if you don't watch/want 4k your money will still be well spent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
If you purchase a higher end model (prices comparable to higher end full hd models) you'll get no loss in HD quality, often looking better with good sources, plus it'll give you the option of viewing current 4k with UHD Bluray coming Dec/Jan, just be aware there's a chance it won't be able to show full 4k standards in the future. Seating distance needs to be adjusted (sat closer) or a bigger screen is required to get the most out of 4k.
4k content is relatively good value from Netflix/Amazon, UHD Bluray will most likely be a couple of quid more than Bluray, with machines nowhere near the price of first gen Bluray machines, looking at about £250 upwards. I've have the Panny 65AX902, even though it's not our main screen for viewing (our pj is) I would be more than happy just watching HD on it, so even if you don't watch/want 4k your money will still be well spent. I compared Frozen on Sky Disney HD to the upscaled picture on the Samsung DVD player from the DVD I have ( which upscales to 1080i) and there was very little difference in picture quality. If the same goes for an up-scaled 4k Blueray player then you can pick up one for around £130. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,469
|
4K upscaling, like HD upscaling before it, is pointless unless the player upscales better than the TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
4K upscaling, like HD upscaling before it, is pointless unless the player upscales better than the TV.
![]() Bringing out upscaling BD players seems a ludicrous idea, presumably it happened because of the huge delays in bringing out an actual 4K BD system?. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
4K upscaling, like HD upscaling before it, is pointless unless the player upscales better than the TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,792
|
Quote:
Then the Samsung player I have must be good as it upscales to 1080i. As stated in my post I played an DVD copy of Frozen and compared it with the same broadcast on SKY HD. There was only a very slight difference in the colour between the two, with the DVD being slightly faded. It's only when connected via an Ariel cable rather than HDMI is there a greater difference in picture quality.
![]() If you're not close enough to see HD detail, then a DVD looks REALLY good. I'm not sure how good a test a cartoon is though?, do cartoons have much HD detail? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
You're probably watching from too far away then
![]() If you're not close enough to see HD detail, then a DVD looks REALLY good. I'm not sure how good a test a cartoon is though?, do cartoons have much HD detail? At about 6 feet away it was only a slight colour difference that could be noticed. On that I was in Currys today and saw three Sony 43 inch screens being demonstrated The first Sony that had an 800hz processing / X Reality-Pro Enhancement which was a HD set. The second ( also HD) had 1000hz processing X Reality Pro, and the third a UDH with 1000hz and X Reality Pro and X1 processor. Although the detail was better on the 4k set, with the same picture the colours on the second one were far better from about three feet away. There was a black and white snake in one image and on the second set it looked white, compared to the 4K picture where it was off white. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
There are cheaper Bluray players on the market that upscale to 4k.
I compared Frozen on Sky Disney HD to the upscaled picture on the Samsung DVD player from the DVD I have ( which upscales to 1080i) and there was very little difference in picture quality. If the same goes for an up-scaled 4k Blueray player then you can pick up one for around £130. Re Frozen: Precisely why I cancelled Sky movies HD, because the quality is no better than an upscaled DVD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
Re Frozen: Precisely why I cancelled Sky movies HD, because the quality is no better than an upscaled DVD. ![]() It can depend though how much a DVD player upscales the picture. The one in my bedroom only upscales to the quality of a BluRay disc, the one I have on my main TV upscales to 1080i. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: southampton uk
Posts: 670
|
Atm no point but wail few yarns and 4k will it in its own Like Hd has you Will have a range of Chanells in Hd A few in 4k you will also Still have SD channel as they are cheep to run some Channel will do all 3 4K .HD.SD. others Just do HD & SD but will few will Be SD only i could wall be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,536
|
Quote:
Re Frozen: Precisely why I cancelled Sky movies HD, because the quality is no better than an upscaled DVD. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,008
|
Quote:
4K upscaling, like HD upscaling before it, is pointless unless the player upscales better than the TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,486
|
The manufacturers will be pushing HDR alongside 4K, not something strictly you need for HDR but that's how it will come, whether that provides the wow factor I don't know, after that will be high frame rates. The new 4K or rather UHD Blu-rays at the start of next year will feature HDR, they've missed the pre-Christmas market this year, so it may get off to a slow start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nth East
Posts: 21,598
|
I was considering a 4K Tv, the Bravia 55X8509C, as it had come down to £999, but its gone back up now (to £1249), so after some thought, ive just gone for the 55W809 non 4K instead, as im not really interested in 4K tbh, and won't be using Netflix etc..., besides, 4Ks probably a while off yet anyway, look at HD, we're not that fully yet, still got a lot of SD channels still, and HDs been around ages now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,469
|
Quote:
Upscaling cannot generate what is not there. It is a con.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nth East
Posts: 21,598
|
Picked up the Tv today, fantastic picture on it, will probably do a few more tweaks, but so far its great, just using the Photo-Standard Picture Mode, which ive tweaked a tad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,743
|
Quote:
If you have a 4K TV, HD and SD have to be upscaled somewhere otherwise the picture will not fill the screen. Good quality upscalers (eg. Sony/Panasonic) produce pictures that look higher resolution than they are which is all the viewer cares about. Put a 640X480 still into Photoshop and play with various combination of resizing sharpening and Gaussian Blur filtering, I can guarantee that you will produce a more pleasing picture than the original jagged edged one. Thats what good upscaling does, makes a low resolution picture more pleasant to watch.
But of course, people tend to spend more on their shiny new 4K TVs and unsurprisingly, tend to get a better picture for their extra money - not forgetting that they are usually comparing an older model HD TV with this year's latest 4K model. And I haven't even got started on confirmation bias... |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,469
|
Quote:
But a good HD TV doesn't have jagged edges, certainly not if you don't poke your nose up to the screen as most people don't. Spend the 4K money on a good HD TV instead and it will look just as good or maybe better... on HD material.
But of course, people tend to spend more on their shiny new 4K TVs and unsurprisingly, tend to get a better picture for their extra money - not forgetting that they are usually comparing an older model HD TV with this year's latest 4K model. And I haven't even got started on confirmation bias... |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
But a good HD TV doesn't have jagged edges, certainly not if you don't poke your nose up to the screen as most people don't. Spend the 4K money on a good HD TV instead and it will look just as good or maybe better... on HD material.
But of course, people tend to spend more on their shiny new 4K TVs and unsurprisingly, tend to get a better picture for their extra money - not forgetting that they are usually comparing an older model HD TV with this year's latest 4K model. And I haven't even got started on confirmation bias... As my old 32 inch Sony Bravia (with and LCD screen and 50hz processing rate) is struggling a bit on high speed movement - such as watching F1 on SkyF1HD - I got the 43 inch Sony HD a my main viewing TV with 1000hz processing rate. I ill suit me for a few years, and by then - hopefully - the standards for 4K/HDR will be set as universal standard. And as the saleswoman in Curry's said to me, the price of 4K TVs will be the price of a very good HD set now. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:10.



).
