x404.co.uk
http://x404.co.uk/forum/

4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
http://x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26097		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  pcernie [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
Gonna be buying a TV reasonably soon, thinking 55" minimum on the chimney breast, me sitting maybe 10 foot away... 4K isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference there, is it?

Bearing in mind I won't be forking out for 4K content in any way shape or form, and HD-HDR upscaling will likely suck balls... I then don't need 4K and it will likely make broadcasts look sh1te, correct? I'm not even the gamer I used to be lol.

I know how that reads, and I'm 99% certain it's the usual con... just wanna be certain I'm not missing out!
Author:  paulzolo [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
It seems pretty pointless to me too - for much the same reason. I’m told every now and then that the TV we have is too big (36 inch screen IIRC), and at viewing distance, that’s all you need. Anything else is wasted pixels. What 4K will give you is a better display at bigger sizes further away, so I expect a small private cinema could work on 4K displays.

I can see a benefit for 4K on computer displays - where lines are no longer perceived as pixels. This is heading towards resolution independent displays, and your screen will be as sharp (if not sharper) than a high-spec printed page.

Don’t forget, this is the current pi$$ing contest. It’ll be 8K in a year or so.
Author:  steve74 [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
I came to the same conclusion recently when buying a new TV, though mine was a bit smaller so that made my mind up for me really. I believe both Netflix and Amazon are planning 4K streaming and if you don't have Sky Q then you don't really need 4K unless you plan on keeping the set beyond a few years
Author:  cloaked_wolf [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
There's a graph somewheee that shows the relationship between screen size, different resolutions and how far you have to sit before you notice a difference.

Actually just found it: https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-ful ... uide.10704

Additionally, look at what you watch. If you watch a lot of HD/stuff that's available in 4K, it'll be worth it. If, like me, you still watch stuff in SD (eg freeview) then not worth it.

I'm also looking at a new TV but our house is relatively small and anything larger than 42-43" just won't fit unless we mount it above the fireplace. I've always hated having to look up to see a screen - I think it puts extra strain on your neck. I firmly believe the top of the TV should be below your eyeline when sitting, so you're looking downwards. Same reason why I used to sit at the back in lectures, and why i sit at the back in the cinema.

I'd recommend cutting out a bit of cardboard to the same dimensions as the sort of TV you want to get an idea of what's a suitable size. With all of the 65+ inch screens, 55" looks quite small and 42 " is tiny when in showrooms.
Author:  paulzolo [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
cloaked_wolf wrote:
I've always hated having to look up to see a screen - I think it puts extra strain on your neck. I firmly believe the top of the TV should be below your eyeline when sitting, so you're looking downwards. Same reason why I used to sit at the back in lectures, and why i sit at the back in the cinema.


A TV should be at eyeliner or just lower. I have no idea why people mount their TVs so high up the wall - but you see that done so much.

Also, do yourself a favour and calibrate your screen when you get it. They come out of the factory with the blue cranked right up, and sharpness maxed out, because nothing says HD like an over blue image with added noise caused by sharpening! I calibrated my set when I bought it, and I’ve had people ask how my TV has such a natural “photographic” quality to it. I see sets in showrooms, and they make my eyes water. Dreadful.

Also, a 36 inch screen will seem quite small in s show room, but get it home and it takes over a whole wall.
Author:  andytw [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
steve74 wrote:
I came to the same conclusion recently when buying a new TV, though mine was a bit smaller so that made my mind up for me really. I believe both Netflix and Amazon are planning 4K streaming and if you don't have Sky Q then you don't really need 4K unless you plan on keeping the set beyond a few years


Both Netflix and Amazon already offer 4K content (I've been enjoying Amazon's "The Grand Tour" in 4K recently and other content is available at that resolution).

Whether you need 4K has already been discussed and is dependant on a number of factors, but if the cost (and technology) is similar then a 4K TV would not normally look worse at the same viewing distance than an equivalent Full HD set and will offer some future proofing.
Author:  Spreadie [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
cloaked_wolf wrote:
There's a graph somewheee that shows the relationship between screen size, different resolutions and how far you have to sit before you notice a difference.

Actually just found it: https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-ful ... uide.10704

Interesting.

So, at the distance my TV is away from where I sit, to make 4k worthwhile, I'd need to go for a 65-70" screen. That's just vulgar.

1080p is fine by me.
Author:  belchingmatt [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
cloaked_wolf wrote:
I'd recommend cutting out a bit of cardboard to the same dimensions as the sort of TV you want to get an idea of what's a suitable size. With all of the 65+ inch screens, 55" looks quite small and 42 " is tiny when in showrooms.


This is an excellent idea, and I did something similar when I decided to buy a smartphone. I couldn't decide whether to go for a standard or compact version and so made models with cardboard, tape and coins [for weight] to help me decide on what would fit in my pocket comfortably. Not a perfect method when it comes to usability for example, but it helped.
Author:  pcernie [ Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
cloaked_wolf wrote:
There's a graph somewheee that shows the relationship between screen size, different resolutions and how far you have to sit before you notice a difference.

Actually just found it: https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-ful ... uide.10704

Additionally, look at what you watch. If you watch a lot of HD/stuff that's available in 4K, it'll be worth it. If, like me, you still watch stuff in SD (eg freeview) then not worth it.

I'm also looking at a new TV but our house is relatively small and anything larger than 42-43" just won't fit unless we mount it above the fireplace. I've always hated having to look up to see a screen - I think it puts extra strain on your neck. I firmly believe the top of the TV should be below your eyeline when sitting, so you're looking downwards. Same reason why I used to sit at the back in lectures, and why i sit at the back in the cinema.

I'd recommend cutting out a bit of cardboard to the same dimensions as the sort of TV you want to get an idea of what's a suitable size. With all of the 65+ inch screens, 55" looks quite small and 42 " is tiny when in showrooms.


Thanks for the link, most useful!

My pre-bought TV wall mount actually has a cardboard ruler for measuring and perception. Further measurements are required no matter what I do, but I also don't want the TV up near the ceiling...
Author:  big_D [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
Amazon has a lot of UHD content. A lot of its in-house series are filmed in UHD and a growing number of other series are available in UHD. There are also a growing number of films available in UHD on Amazon Prime. The UHD film prices, for those not in Prime, are pretty obscene (29.99€).

I wasn't really looking for 4K, but ended up with a 49" 4K UHD set. We sit about 3M from the set and there is a noticeable difference between HD and UHD HDR content (in fact the Dune Buggies episodes of the Grand Tour were at times too sharp and looked unrealistic). The Sony is better than the Samsung I looked at, when it comes to SD TV. The Samsung was full of lines and looked really bad, which is why I bought the HD+ card for the TV, so that I could get the HD versions of the free-to-air channels (60€ a year, just to get the free content in HD!). But the Sony does in fact do a reasonable job with SD content, it is watchable, if a little soft. That said, I haven't tried to play a DVD on it yet.

My FireTV is older, so only does HD, but the Sony has Android and the AmazonPrime App does UHD. It also has Netflix and Google Play built in and can stream those in UHD, so if you have content/subscriptions with the main streaming services, you can get stuff in UHD - with Amazon, UHD versions of in-house series and some Prime series and films are included in the Prime subscription, so if your broadband is fast enough, there is nothing stopping you watching UHD content.

That said, we watch HD most of the time (licence fee channels, plus free-to-air commercial channels) and the quality is generally excellen.
Author:  cloaked_wolf [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
paulzolo wrote:
calibrate your screen when you get it


Thanks to a tip from pcernie a while back, I got hold of a calibration software dvd that I really should get round to using on my 32" 1080p screen.
Author:  hifidelity2 [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
I hope to replace my TV some time (once my job situation is sorted out)

I will probably get around the 50" mark and will get a 4K TV as I will keep it for some time and might as well future proof as much as possible
Author:  davrosG5 [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
I've had the odd look at tellies recently as mine is getting on a bit and I came to the conclusion that most decent screens now have got such small bezels that a 48 - 50" new screen will not be much bigger in terms of overall footprint than my current 40". :shock:
Author:  big_D [ Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
It also makes it a pain in the rear to get them out of the packaging. They write, that you shouldn't touch the screen itself, but there is practically no frame, so what are you supposed to get hold of to lift the 20 or so Kg out of the packaging? :evil:
Author:  hifidelity2 [ Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
big_D wrote:
It also makes it a pain in the rear to get them out of the packaging. They write, that you shouldn't touch the screen itself, but there is practically no frame, so what are you supposed to get hold of to lift the 20 or so Kg out of the packaging? :evil:

cotton gloves
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/