[Closed] 4k UHD - Is it worth it?

Picture Quality is about an awful lot more than resolution.

It is, and resolution is numbers game. But more of everything is good generally. More Dynamic Range, Latitude, Rez - though perhaps less compression!

It is, and resolution is numbers game. But more of everything is good generally. More Dynamic Range, Latitude, Rez though perhaps less compression!

trouble is, when I look around at real life, the contrasts and dynamic range seems to be a lot less than on these 4k sets - when I've snorkled reefs they never look as dynamic as on the TVs - if I went on a holiday based on what I saw on a 4k TV I could be severely dissappointed.

Colour accuracy is one of the most important attributes in my book.

trouble is, when I look around at real life, the contrasts and dynamic range seems to be a lot less than on these 4k sets - when I've snorkled reefs they never look as dynamic as on the TVs - if I went on a holiday based on what I saw on a 4k TV I could be severely dissappointed.

Contrast ratio has been the limiting factor for years for digital panels. If set-up correctly in the right environment: 700:1 (calibrated) should start to give a nice picture.

The issue comes when you set-up for colour accuracy and contrast ratio - the contrast ratio often suffers because display devices generally are limited in how they create a really bright white (usually at the expense of deviating on the greyscale accuracy.) This allows manufacturers to claim 200000:1 - which is ridiculous, and bears no resemblance to anything useful.

Cinema displays generally come in around 1000:1. That's in a darkened environment.

wobbliscott makes a good point.

Here I'll bring Mrs Flamejob's Thor hammer of ultimate knowledge into the arena. She's a senior Colourist at Technicolour. They (colourists) are the ultimate bookend to the quality of any moving picture production.

She says that all this nonsense, especially 4K TVs, are a mechanism to sell TVs to nerdy consumers who argue about it on forums.

[b]The real innovation is High Dynamic Range[/b]. If you have a TV then wait a couple of years for one of those. Otherwise don't bother with 4K.

I've seen a Dolby High Dynamic Range monitor and it was truly jaw dropping.

PS I have a 'Cinema 4K' monitor on my PC, but that's a totally different thing.

Anyone have any recommendations under £1000? My old Sharp is on its last legs. Been amazing but time for a new one, after all, I'd like to get the benefit of the Netflix premium, or not, as this thread mentions

She says that all this nonsense, especially 4K TVs, are a mechanism to sell TVs to nerdy consumers who argue about it on forums.

I concur that she does indeed have the ultimate knowledge.

The real innovation is High Dynamic Range. If you have a TV then wait a couple of years for one of those. Otherwise don't bother with 4K.

I don't agree with this. Films are having DIs in 4K. Are being shot in 4/5/6K It makes sense to get as close to that as possible.

Then, conversely films are having DIs in 2K and being put out on UHD blu-ray 4K! That's particularly annoying.

As for HDR, well yes there's an argument - but then there's an argument for just getting out of the camera what comes out of the camera. HDR is more than likely just making up for the fact that digital panels aren't great with black/shadow detail.

Either way - there is room for improvement.

We own 5 cameras all with a 4K capability minimum. (DVX200, GH4sx2, RED EPIC, and RED EPIC DRAGON). In fact 4K is actually pretty old hat really in terms of digital cinema.

Consumer stuff is getting better and better though. I say bring it on and there's always a case for getting more accurate viewing in the home, if that's your thing.

Decent, layman's article at http://uk.businessinsider.com/4k-tv-hdr-whats-the-difference-2016-8.

Main takeaway / concern for me given that I need a new telly (new room) rather than want one...

Why you'll buy a 4K TV anyway

Here’s the fun part, though: Your next TV will probably be at 4K regardless. Costs have fallen dramatically over the past four years, and today you can find a competent Ultra HD set for well under $500.

This has made 1080p panels cheaper, but that’s not a good thing. Instead, it means that the stuff that really makes up a good display — higher contrast ratios, smoother motion, better colors, etc. — has been stripped out of 1080p TVs to cut costs, and put into 4K TVs instead. Unless you’re buying very small (think 32 inches or lower) or very cheap, you’ll want a 4K set, even if 4K itself isn’t worth the hype.

As for HDR, well yes there's an argument - but then there's an argument for just getting out of the camera what comes out of the camera. HDR is more than likely just making up for the fact that digital panels aren't great with black/shadow detail.

Isn't the argument for HDR the same one as with still cameras, that the normal camera sensor is deficient in its dynamic range compared to the human eye ?

HDR is more than likely just making up for the fact that digital panels aren't great with black/shadow detail.

Not at all - the best digital panels have really good blacks/shadow detail. My [url= http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/txp42gt60b-201402163594.htm ]Panasonic Plasma[/url] is superb in this respect and the best modern LCD sets are good as well. Cheap LCD sets remain a washed out grey mess (although they're a lot better than they used to be).

The HDR UHD TVs I've seen look a lot better in bright light than Plasma's do though (which is when they suffer).

The HDR UHD TVs I've seen look a lot better in bright light than Plasma's do though

Isn't that the whole point of HDR though, not being limited to the relatively dim and murky pictures we're used to caused by the inability of celluloid not to melt/catch fire when a really bright bulb is used to make a bright picture.

The HDR UHD TVs I've seen look a lot better in bright light than Plasma's do though (which is when they suffer).

Yes but my plasma has a distinct advantage - the glass on the front is strong enough to withstand the sharp claws of my kitten when she is attacking the screen.

Yes but my plasma has a distinct advantage - the glass on the front is strong enough to withstand the sharp claws of my kitten when she is attacking the screen.

Who watches TV in bright light anyway?

My Panny Plasma came with one of [url= http://shop.panasonic.com/tvs/tv-accessories/tv-other-accessories/TY-TP10U.html ]these pens[/url]. I'm still struggling with the design meeting that led to that - "we give them these pens so they can play games with their kids by drawing on the screen. But won't the kids then just think it's OK to draw on the screen with normal pens? No, they wouldn't do that - they'd know to only use the *special* pen."

Needless to say, it's never even had batteries put in it.

The real innovation is High Dynamic Range. If you have a TV then wait a couple of years for one of those. Otherwise don't bother with 4K.

They (4K HDR TV's) are available right now, at fairly reasonable prices, if you want one. If you have the source material to support it, and want a new TV, why wait?

Not at all - the best digital panels have really good blacks/shadow detail. My Panasonic Plasma is superb in this respect and the best modern LCD sets are good as well. Cheap LCD sets remain a washed out grey mess (although they're a lot better than they used to be).

I too have Panasonic Plasmas (here at home and in our edit suite) - agree. But you can't really buy these any longer.

And you're incorrect about modern LCD sets. They're better than they were but they're still not great.

Isn't the argument for HDR the same one as with still cameras, that the normal camera sensor is deficient in its dynamic range compared to the human eye ?

We're currently on about 16+ stops of Dynamic Range with the latest sensors. As I understand it our eyes are (and depending who you believe) about 14-16 stops.

Basic or consumer cameras expect anywhere from 8-12 stops.

HDR is just effectively improving contrast ratio. Like I say digital panels are notoriously deficient the area of shadow detail and absolute black. Some technologies are better than others. I do worry about any dynamic messing around the with the image - the native contrast ratio is usually the best place to be.

More is good, as long as it's implemented c orrectly.

And you're incorrect about modern LCD sets. They're better than they were but they're still not great

hence 'best modern sets' and 'good' vs supurb. I notice http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/category/reviews hasn't given a 'reference level' to anything other than a plasma or OLED screen yet and their 'highly recommended' hasn't gone to any non-Plasmas costing less than a £2k

We've just bought a new tv. It's 4K because that's what TVs are now is pretty much what happened!

hence 'best modern sets' and 'good' vs supurb. I notice http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/category/reviews hasn't given a 'reference level' to anything other than a plasma or OLED screen yet and their 'highly recommended' hasn't gone to any non-Plasmas costing less than a £2k

The Samsung KS8000 was highly recommend at £1600:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue55ks8000-201609174362.htm

hence 'best modern sets' and 'good' vs supurb.

Fair enough. I'm just bitter of the demise of Plasma. It'll get there.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Personally I wouldn't be looking at Netflix as a good source of 4k. While it can spit out the resolution, the content is likely variable bitrate encoded and the stream is variable bitrate depending on your broadband. At some points the rate can drop enough that a particular scene may drop in resolution, or it may pixelate a little in places, even just parts of the picture. With a high resolution output that may look like blurring or a little out of focus.

A reference 4k source would be physical media. Sky broadcast maybe next, although would their 4k material be via satellite or Internet? Basically packet based streaming is going to be subject to variable bitrate depending on signal/bandwidth and other traffic.

As for worth it, personally unless you have a 50"+ TV and aren't too far away from it, I'd say no. I struggle to see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 46" TV ! . My parents have a smaller (28 or 32 I think) old 720 HD TV and there's no benefit them upgrading to full HD if they don't change TV size (and they don't need to). They're still even feeding in a DVD player via VHS! but it looks fine enough on a small TV, given it's only SD resolution anyway. Would look terrible on my bigger TV though, but I use my old HD DVD player, in preference to my Blu Ray player, to play DVDs as it upscales nicely. So much that a lot of SD material is not that bad compared to some average quality HD material.

And then it also depends on your vision 😉

It's very subjective. Contrast and sharpness can make an image pop and look stunning, yet a higher resolution image with less of both can look average by comparison. More so when both are viewed in a smaller size. Hence why YouTube videos can look sharp and HD-like in a little window in a browser, and yet stick it on full screen or project to a TV and can look rubbish.

UE49KS7000 at the top of the table Drac posted is £899 now. On my shortlist if Black Friday brings it down another £100 though may go to Asda for a £300 jobbie and a bonus punch up

[img] ?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=60743cc60c8cc5c99e0c6e4ba5a23a06[/img]

Fair enough. I'm just bitter of the demise of Plasma. It'll get there.

The Samsung KS8000 was highly recommend at £1600:

My bad. I'd ticked 'best in class' and you'd not expect that to go to any cheaper sets. However, the lack of any reference level LCD displays more than 3 years after the last plasma sets were released is telling.

You are right Deadkenny !

In the last few days i have tried content from youtube and hd content from Play. Both are superior quality to Netflix. Luckily I didnt buy the TV just for 4k, as others have said, pretty much any large screen tv you buy now will be 4k compatible.

UE49KS7000 at the top of the table Drac posted is £899 now

Why did you tell me that.

Oh look they're in stock at John Lewis. 😐

OP...i assume you had sky+HD...only a few of their hd channels looked hd
all their uhd content is now getting ready to be pumped through their new sky Q package.
we've just upgraded to sky Q after our hd box died (repairing or replacing would have cost more than upgrading)
the picture quality on the hd channels seems better but i cant test the uhd/4k content until i've convinced the wife that we need a 4k tv

the picture quality on the hd channels seems better

The source will be the same - it's the same bit rate off the same satellite. I supposed the box *could* be doing a slightly better job

we've just upgraded to sky Q after our hd box died (repairing or replacing would have cost more than upgrading)

A secondhand box is about £30. 😕

Mate of mine has one. Only the small amount of stuff he has found in 4k, it looks good.

But the stuff he can watch is so limited it isnt worth it.

The Grand Tour is 4k apparently though.

I have sky cinema through virgin and most of the movies seem to be 720P/1080i although I thought they were suppossed to have upgraded the offereing a while ago when the dropped the HD distinction - but even so it looks pretty poor to me, some of the terrestial/freeview HD stuff is significantly better.

My Sony W905 was highly recommended as well.

While we are on the subject, who the hell wants to pay £20 for a 4k Blu ray?!!?!??!?

Normal Blu Ray was that and more at one time.

Well, VHS was original £100+ for a film to actually buy.

Yeah they were insane.

RadMac were talking about The Clash's Sandanista yesterday. They struggled to keep the triple album below £6. Inflation adjusted price for that is £27. We've got used to stuff being really cheap.

Well, VHS was original £100+ for a film to actually buy

Yeah they were. That's a distant memory but I can remember radio rentals having Far From The Madding Crowd and Enter The Dragon to buy at around 70 quid.

Personally I wouldn't be looking at Netflix as a good source of 4k. While it can spit out the resolution, the content is likely variable bitrate encoded and the stream is variable bitrate depending on your broadband.

There ain't nothing wrong with variable bitrate, especially given the level of sophistication of encoding.

Also Netflix use an extemerely clever system of encoding, far beyond discussion here.

[url= http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/12/per-title-encode-optimization.html?m=1 ]netflix teccy[/url]

Basically they're ahead of the game of most other streaming platforms.

There are better ways to serve 4K but our almost lossless Red Raw needs 80MB/S to see in total glory so there's bound to be trade offs.

OLED might be affordable by the time you need to replace it

We have OLED view-finders. They are pretty good.

I went OLED HD instead of LCD 4K, the 4K OLED was out of my price range, 99% of what I watch isn't available in 4K and I get the benefit of decent black levels with whatever I watch.

Given the choice again (even though there is more 4K content now) I would still make the same call.

Quick update. Watched another episode of Stranger Things last night and the picture was superb.

I have changed my Netflix from Auto to High. Also played around with various picture settings on the TV.