BIB: OK. I think that's an irrelevant technical detail because either way, 720 or 768 panels could not display 1080 without scaling down to match the panel, which is the point I was making. You need a 1080 panel to display 1080 without scaling. The TV may have been capable of receiving and scaling a 1080 signal at least via HDMI and later when Freeview HD emerged. Were there any models with 720/768 panel and a Freeview HD Tuner?

That's my understanding of "HD Ready". That label failed to make clear to the masses when a TV was not actually 1080. I bow to your superior knowledge, but I never saw a 1080 panel TV labelled as only "HD Ready".

I still don't understand how you can legitimately claim those labels "had nothing to do with 1080" when it's clear many thought they did (quite rightly IMO), even if you and the industry didn't agree.

Unless you're quibbling over my inclusion of the "p"? The panel is the key point, as you certainly know already. Who's being "misleading" here?

As it happens the (Sony) TV I bought at the time was labelled "Full HD" because it had a 1080 panel and could display in 1080, 1080 sources connected via HDMI. "Full HD" is why I chose it. It only had a Freeview tuner built in though, not Freeview HD, I didn't mind that so much because I also got Sky HD when I got the TV.

I think that is correct, however my own 1080 panel TV only had a Freeview tuner, not Freeview HD.

My own set was one of those not able to do 24p either. That was the following year's innovation.

By the time Freeview HD appeared HD Ready sets were very much a rarity anyway, but I 'think' the Freeview HD specification calls for a 1080 resolution panel in order to use the Freeview HD logo.

There's nothing technically stopping you having a 768 pixel set with a Freeview HD 'tuner', but you couldn't call it Freeview HD.

Well prior to Freeview HD appearing there were a number of sets that did DTT HD (for the non-UK market), but I've no idea if they had to have 1080 panels?.


You were, incorrectly specifying 'p'


As was clearly obvious when you bought it, it didn't have the Freeview HD logo, so couldn't receive Freeview HD.

While you are technically correct, I'm sure you knew what I was getting at.

Despite my slight imprecision there.


I've no quibble with that tag. Freeview HD wasn't available at the time I bought and I had a perfectly good workaround. In point of fact I hardly ever used the Freeview tuner, and when I watched the regular terrestrial channels it was via Sky HD almost exclusively.

I'm thinking of replacing the ancient CRT thing that lurks in the corner of the living room. We don't actually watch much TV but I'd like to watch the snooker on something a bit less 1990s.

I want something that's about 40", because anything bigger will be too big for the room. Viewing distance will be about 9 feet.

I mention all this because I know basically nothing about tellies and I don't know what to get. Is it worth going 4K for a TV of this size, at that viewing distance? Any recommendations for a particular model? I quite like the Bravia we've got in the bedroom so I'm thinking of getting another one for the living room, but I don't really mind.

Any thoughts welcome!

Given a typical visual accutiy if one minute of arc
A UHD 1 pixel,can be resolved at 1.5 time picture height H away from the screen .
A 40" tv has H of about 2 ft if you're closer than a yard or so you can see the pixels ..
And HD screen has the same "can see the pixels" at 3 H call it say 2 metres .

With a 9 ft viewing distance To see the pixels for a HD screen you would need roughly a 60 inch screen....

You might like to read Katy Noland's BBC r&d white paper
A survey of uk viewing conditions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287

That's fantastically helpful, thank you! I'd never heard of the 3H rule before, that's an excellent rule of thumb. Much appreciated.

That is why the broadcasters are driving for higher dynamic range wider colour gamut higher frame rate and immersive audio all if this you can benefit from at greater than the 1.5H that you have to be close to the screen to see the pixels in uhd1..

Do take time to read her paper and those she references ...

Fascinating survey. And thanks for the technical detail.

I found Netflix to be very poor at 4K. I have a Panasonic 58dx700 that is also HDR and I tried Netflix with the free trial. The 4K demos look absolutely superb but the 4K tv shows leave much to be desired. I have a very fast internet connection so that's not the problem.
I tried the HDR to shows and that wasn't brilliant as well. I am speaking relatively here.
It's not surprising that 4K bluray looks much better than streamed content. Upscaled bluray content looks better than generic 4K on Netflix.
I also play PC games at native 4K through hdmi 2 and they look truly marvellous.
It's early days for 4K and maybe the new Xbox 1 s will be the saviour of 4K bluray.
To be honest the 4K movies released on disc so far are pretty poor. The same mistake was made when bluray was launched.
Let's face it bluray has never caught on. After 10 years it still only has a 20% market share of physical disc sales. DVD is still the dominant format.
I think bluray is suoerb and when decent movies shot on celluloid start to come out on 4K bluray I'll buy a player.
I don't think we will ever really see the full potential of 4K and HDR with streamed content. Only 10% of the U.K has broadband speeds higher than 50mb and I really don't think the majority of people really care about picture quality. Who really wants to stuff like extenders and reality tv at 4K?
So far I've only seen the potential of 4K via demos on Netflix. The picture is truly breathtaking. I really don't think that we will see standard to tv shows that look that good.
I don't know how 4K bluray compared to the demos because I've not got the hardware to play them. The reviews of the Panasonic are outstanding. The Samsung gets bad reviews by comparison. Let's see how the xb1 s shapes up.
But please can we have some decent movies like the African Queen, gone with the wind etc. These movies look astonishingly good at upscaled 4K. I can't wait to see them at proper 4K HDR

It's the exact reason I have stuck with my plasma 50 inch HD Ready set, I sit at 10+ feet like most people in the UK apparently, though it's 42 inch plasma at 9 feet in the bedroom). I have to lean forward to see the pixels so that works well for me.

Maybe I will eventually upgrade to full HD or UHD - but there's no real incentive to do that at the moment so I will probably wait for UHD 1 phase 2 to be available and mature. Maybe in 2020, unless my plasmas fail before then.

Hopefully getting my LG E6 65" tv soon well either that or C6. Im looking at this stand. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mountright-...ords=Tv+stands problem is I don't know if the tv will fit or even how it fits.

I presume your comments about 4K blu ray releases so far refer to the selection on offer and not the picture quality.

Everyone has their personal back catalogue favourites that they'd like to see get a release. I'm still waiting for a few on blu ray "The Dish" (2000) with Sam Neil and "A Matter of Life and Death" (1946) with David Niven, however most of my favourites have now been released on blu ray.

It always takes a long time for the studios to release back catalogue titles - even those rated highly by movie buffs as classics. It's all down to the studios deciding which titles will make them money. Their opinion is brand new titles always have a greater chance of them making money and avoid the format appearing to be niche, with "old fashioned" content.

As for blu ray, while it's not quite mainstream, even after 10 years, the fact that it has a significant %age market penetration and that all the studios continue to support it by releasing new titles and back catalogue titles on the format says it's far from being an abject failure. So it's not exactly niche either.

Personally, I love owning my own copy on various silver discs, but I think that in the future streaming will dominate. That's still a few years away yet though.

I got a 55'' Samsung 4k tv a week ago, even just watching 4k vids on YouTube has me salivating, and they probably aren't even that good. Can't wait for the Xbox One S to come out so that I can try some UHD content from a better source than YouTube.

I got LG oled C6 65" Arrives tomorrow. It was that or E6 but in the end decided on C6. Can't wait to get it set up and see what its like especially when football season starts in UHD. Also shows on amazon like man in the high castle in HDR.

If anyone is thinking of buying a new TV make sure it has the UHD Premium label on it
because that is the latest spec at the moment - it includes stuff like HDR and HFR and HVEC

Same here, pre-ordered the One S mainly for the 4K Bluray support, got three 4K movies all ready to go

I agree with this completely and I think this years Samsung certified SUHD TV's all look very good.

http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra...tvs-support-it

My C6 65" tv arrived this morning. Box was massive but tv is so beautiful. People who said the curve is barely noticeable are absolutely right. Tried a 3D film and it was absolutely breathtaking. Bigger is definitely better especially for 3D.cannot wait to watch UHD programmes when they arrive.

It doesn't include HFR (High Frame Rate), the hardware to handle that just isn't commercially available yet. But yes, UHD Premium TVs will be future proof for a few years anyway, until HFR comes along. As an aside, the 60 fps of UHD TVs isn't HFR.

This one calls it Freeview HD.

http://www.tesco.com/direct/blaupunk...?source=others

You mean Tesco call it Freeview HD

About the level of Tesco selling electronics

Are you saying it doesn't have a Freeview HD tuner? Assuming it does, it also has a better than 720 panel, which makes it by definition "HD" as it meets or exceeds the minimum requirements defined for "HD" (though not "Full HD" which would need a 1080 panel).

OTOH, if Tesco's published information is not correct, then they would potentially be in trouble for not accurately describing the item.

I'm not so sure HFR is even desirable. Maybe it's due to how we've all become conditioned to the way traditional 24fps cinema looks, but it just doesn't look right.

I saw the first Hobbit film at the cinema in HFR and it made it look like it was shot on video. A version of the "soap opera effect".

Theoretically it should improve the realism of image, making it feel more like you're actually there, but for film I found it didn't work.

I expect higher frame rates improves the realism of VR though.

As far as I'm aware, to use the 'Freeview HD' logo, the set needs to be Full HD - just having a 'tuner' doesn't allow use of the logo.


You seem to have amazing confidence in people who sell baked beans understanding anything at all about electronics

But quite often, even the manufacturers websites get the details incorrect as well