Hoping to go down to currys next weekend to look at E6, that's if its on display. I went down friday and saw my first ever oled tv. It was lg but not sure which, it was £2000. Picture was incredible, the blacks compared to the sony and Samsung each side of it was was unbelievable. They were grey compared to lg and that wasn't even their best one.

^^Amazon does have HDR for the UK at least

No panels exist that meet Dolby Vision (DV) standards, that's true. LG panels are 10 bit. As I understand it, the point is that DV adjusts to the specific panel's capabilities, whereas HDR10 is a blanket "one size fits all" approach. So, if (or when) DV sources become available (there are no commercial UHD blu rays encoded with DV yet) current TVs that support DV now will be able to display a better image than current TVs that only support HDR10.

Future panels (of either type) may in the future achieve the brightness and colour gamut needed for (real) HDR. It's something for the manufacturers to aim for.

I would like to see both emerge as successful and co-exist, rather like Dolby and DTS do.


Hmm. I believe OLED meets both HDR standards on the colour gamut side too. I've seen no reviews suggesting OLED HDR screens give a lower colour gamut than LCD? This years OLED screens claim to display 99% of DCI-P3.

Some TVs have a REC.2020 profile, but that doesn't mean they can display the full REC.2020 gamut, only interpret it correctly.


Found the Link
Though they are a member of the UHD Alliance, as you said, Sony are not using the UHD Premium logo according to that article. The only reason for it I can think of is that have their own "standard" in mind to establish/continue a distinctive, premium marketing position.


BIB: Agreed!

As luck would have it, when I got home and switched on the TV, after a short while a message popped up to tell me there was a firmware update available. I duly updated (it takes just a few minutes). It told me the update was installed and would be effective after I next restarted TV. So I watched a 4K Blu ray for a while. And got a white flash. I switched off the TV with the remote and on again. Carried on watching the 4K Blu ray. And got a white flash again. So, I unplugged the TV from the mains, waited 10 seconds to let any residual charge dissipate, and switched on again. I didn't see any flash over the next couple of hours watching. Looks like the firmware fixed that problem.

I also checked an Amazon 4K HDR video. That worked as well.

And consensus about the French upscaling problem is that it seems to have been an error.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lg-5...-wi-fi-2467356

lg55EG960V Curved 4K Ultra HD OLED 3D Smart TV, 55" with Freeview HD, Built-In Wi-Fi, Harman/kardon Audio & 2x 3D Glasses £1,799.00 delivered @ John Lewis

Looking on currys website for a tv. It no longer says dispatched in 2-4 weeks although it says for my local store out of stock. http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-...44784-pdt.html could it be on display though because last 2 visits it wasn't? And you can't phone the store because its on a network so you talk to someone in london which i find ridiculous. That needs changing.

Have you tried your nearest John Lewis? Exactly the same price as Currys. That's where I got mine from, though I bought online. I have to admit I didn't go to see one before buying.

I got the Panasonic UHD blu Ray player from Currys.

Nearst john lewis is leeds which is around 10 miles from me and an absolute pain to get to. Won't actually be getting it until august but wanted to see it first, Well that and the C6. Want to see how much curve there is on C6. Im not keen on the soundbar on the E6. I have an amp so don't need that. Apparently PQ on the all 4 lg tvs G6, B6, C6 and E6 is exactly the same. I'll call into currys today to see if its on display. Last week one of the staff said we'll be getting some in next week so I'll see.

Any point buying a 4k tv when there is only one channel i believe .
Plus its going to cost a fortune buying a 4k box then maybe subscibing to sky or bt which wont be cheap.
Then you have to buy new 4k dvds and a 4k dvd player. No thanks!
They say the only way you can appreciate it is to buy an over 50 inch tv.

Plus when 8k comes out are they going to be obsolete?


my friend bought a panasonic 40 inch 4k tv and picture didnt look any different at all on the standard hd channels. BBC1's bargain hunt didnt look very good. so he returned it

There is netfilx and amazon which show 4k content and thats gonna be increased by end of summer. Sky are bringing out 4k channels soon. It just depends on what you watch. 8k is probably 10-15 years off so no point even thinking about that. They are right, I'd say at least 55" anything smaller you might as well not bother.

you need a fast broadband too? i try to watch some online movies on hd but they are bufffering a lot so i have to watch them sd

Some people said pretty much the same things about HD 10 years ago or more when it was new.

There's always something better "round the corner" that you can wait for. There's always a shortage of content in the early days. It always costs more at the beginning too.

Why would you expect an HD source to look any better on a 4K TV than on an HD TV? That's just daft. You need a 4K source to see the benefits of a 4K TV. Bigger screens show the defects in SD and HD sources. And Bargain Hunt never looked any good anyway!

In the US Sony have launched a new range of 4K TVs:

Link

It doesn't make it clear what display technology they use, but the prices suggest to me they're not OLED.

Variety is reporting early sales of UHD blu rays are exceeding, by some margin, sales of blu ray itself when it was at the same stage back in June 2006.

Variety

Surely these 4k tvs should so sold as 4k Ready because theres no 4k content on the tvs is there?
Especially if you havent got broadband.

You would think so wouldn't you?

There's history here. Back when HD was in a similar position (i.e. limited content available, no TV channels, no blu ray players) they made TVs that were labelled "HD Ready". Only these TVs were not capable of full 1080p HD, only 720p HD. And they didn't have a "Freeview HD" tuner either, so they also weren't capable of receiving the terrestrial HD broadcasts that came later.

Fast forward to today and the position with 4K TVs. I suspect the boys from marketing, having conned people by misusing the term "HD Ready" and got many people buying TVs that weren't "Full HD", are now afraid that the term "4K Ready" would be misunderstood by the TV buying public. They made the rod for their own backs.

Despite all that, current 4K sets are genuine 4K displays (no such thing as "Full 4K"), meet UHD standards and come equipped with HDMI inputs. They're about as future proof as you can make them.

The only thing to watch out for is support for HDR. HDR really makes a difference to the image.

I see what you mean but to me "4k Ready" would imply they were capable of receiving 4k transmissions but unable to display them at full resolution.

Edit: GDK beat me to it.

Point proven!

How many misleading statements can you make in one post?

1080P has nothing to do with HD Ready or Full HD, HD Ready sets weren't only 720P - and as for Freeview HD tuners, no such thing existed at the time, and there were no plans to ever have a Freeview HD service (it was only added, at the very last moment, just before DSO).

My post was not intended to mislead anyone.

The "Full HD" label was introduced later to make the point that those sets weren't just "HD Ready". I wasn't aware there were any 1080p "HD Ready" sets. I've no reason to doubt you, but can you explain why a set with a 1080p display would be labelled "HD Ready" by its manufacturer? It just doesn't make sense. They'd surely stick a "Full HD" label on it.

Maybe they printed out too many "HD Ready" labels?

Regardless, the effect was to mislead people into believing they'd bought a HD set. Technically, they had, since 720 was one of the picture resolutions that had been defined as HD, but they weren't getting the full picture. Literally and figuratively.

And yes, the HD terrestrial broadcast standard hadn't been decided when "HD Ready" sets were already being made. That came later as I said in my earlier post.

I've no axe to grind. I don't work in the trade. I do dislike misleading labels designed to catch out the unwary and saddle them with TVs that wouldn't be able to show or tune into 1080i services just a year or two later. Planned obsolescence indeed.

So erm is everyone in agreement that hdr is the best way of future proofing yourself regardless of lcd or oled lol ?

Im only asking as im in a slight dilemma

First of guys i bow down to your superior knowledge and admit to being a bit of a noob, also im fielding these questions from the low income masses point of view , and thus my budget for a new tv genuinely has to top out at 5-600 ,,,,, yes i know that doesn't give me much scope , but ive done a fair bit of internet search and it isnt all bad .

I coud get a very decent 1080p ,,,,, but

I could get a 40inch hisense 4k for 300 , Which to be fair has had mostly positive reviews considering its price point ( and please ,,,, especially nigel lol , please dont give me any reliability issues on cheap components etc ,,,,,, it really isnt an issue anymore in todays world with 5 yr guarantees commonplace , after 5 yrs it will have served its purpose and ill probably want the next big thing by then anyway , so reliability is a moot point) ,, i genuinely Wouldn't give 2 shits after 5 yrs if it packs up ,,,,,, 60 quid a yr bargain .There is of course the debate of discernible difference of 4k over 40 inches vs 1080p which im hoping you guys can offer your opinion on.

I Could of course get a larger 4k set within my budget , their out there if you shop around .
Or i could buy the samsung ue40k6000 4k hdr set ,,,,, for 530 Which is the lowest price ive seen for a hdr set ,,,,, but alas again its only 40inch ?

Any and all advice appreciated guys ,,,,,, thanks in advance ,



Ps , ive followed this forum for many years and whilst nigel is a very knowledgeable chap , he will insist on wearing his sony/panasonic blinkers ,,,,,, cant you accept that whilst sony were top of the tree for many years , they have been overtaken in the picture quality stakes by lg and samsung in recent years , especially with unquestionable oled tech from lg ,,,,,,, dont worry mate , im sure they will get their position back lol when they buy lg oled panels for their eventual oled range lol

Ok sorry to take the piss nigel mate ,,,,,,, you can have the last laugh at my expense ,,,, because im not likely to afford an oled of my own anytime soon

Some on here within your price range. Look at reviews of the ones that you can afford. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...Cv4SiHkvhCQf2Q

Personal opinion: HDR support is vital to get the best possible 4K picture and future proof your TV as much as possible.

I also believe OLED displays are the best at the moment. They don't go as bright as LCD, but have the best blacks. I rate having good blacks as more important that maximum brightness. Longevity of OLED is untested as they haven't been around long enough but is thought to be shorter than LCD.

LCD has the price advantage, being considerably cheaper than OLED.

so when will we have 4k terrestrial channels ,anyone know? I heard BBC is broadcasting some of the olympics in 4k so are they making a channel too. Maybe be a bit much with all their cutbacks.

Again, Full HD had nothing to do with 1080P, Full HD was (and is) 1080i - both of which are of course the same resolution anyway.

Early sets capable of displaying 1080P were labelled Full HD 1080P - and there weren't very many of them.

The HD ready label came about because manufacturers were selling flat screen TV's, mostly Plasma ones, but some LCD as well, as HD when they were only SD screens, or in many cases (with Plasma again) weren't even PAL SD resolution, but were only 480 'lines'.


Almost no sets were ever 720 pixels, there were a tiny few, but it was rare - almost all HD Ready sets were 768 pixel - and a good quality 768 pixel set would give a better picture than a cheap 1080 set, on either SD or HD.


It not only hadn't been decided, it had been decided that there were not going to be any.

As I remember it HD ready had to accept a 720/1080 signal, it didn't necessarily have to display both resolutions, at this particular time native resolutions were mostly made up of 720/768 resolutions. I don't recall any sets not able to tune into 1080i, they just simply downscaled the signal as did my early HD ready TV, I do recall sets not being able to display 1080p/24 though, this was on HD Ready and Full HD resolution TV's. Later they revised the wording to what we basically have today.