[Closed] Would you buy a non-4K TV?

Erm, no.

Soz.

Yes, I've now got TV watching down to a couple of sports prog hours per week.

Yes.

I still think HD is silly 😀

In all seriousness what is a 4K tv, I'm assuming it's not the price?
I own a 9 year old tv that's supposed to be HD but non HD & HD programmes all look the same

4k sounds a bit expensive!

OP maybe yes, would depend on size and price - the larger the tv the more tempted we would be to fo 4K as long as the price wasn't insane. As per your post our tv's are 7 and 8 yrs old so high sticker price today amortises over 8-10yrs use. TV licence will cost £1600 (?) over 10 years somperhaps a few extra £££ is worth paying.

Rocket your tv is probably 720 vs 1080 today and if its small then sd vs 720hd maybe you can't tell

I generally buy tvs about every 8 to ten years, and get whats best for about £350 at the time.
Mainly because standards take a while to become widley adopted, 4k content not that widespread vs screen price and size.

My 37" 1080 telly has plenty of life in it yet, and by the time its a bit tired, great big 4k tellies will be far cheaper.

Erm, maybe - my 2p

When I bought my first HD TV in 2005 they were just about the exception rather than the rule, it cost £900+ for a 32" and it was a full 12 months before it showed its first HD image when I bought a PS3 and some bluray discs.

2 years later when HD became more mainstream the TVs were half the price I paid and a lot better (1080 v 720) the year after they were cheaper again.

I think now we're about the same place with 4K as we were with HD in 2005, yeah you can get 4K Bluray, Netflix 4K and SkyQ but it's far from mainstream - next year or maybe 2018 it'll be everywhere and the TVs will be as cheap as they are for HD now.

If you're into your AV then you'll want the best with a load of features most of us won't care about or see, but if you're not HD will be fine for a few years yet.

I have a two TVs - one full HD and one 4K.

I prefer the picture from the HD-only set (though I suspect this is because it has a Sky HD feed vs a freeview one).

All depends on your source material and attitude towards quality.

I would take a decent quality 1080p panel over a black Friday rebranded 4k special.

However 4K isn't going away. So if money allows get the best 4K you can afford.

No because I have no idea what it does.
All I want is the simplest box that is in effect a smart telly that doesn't need anything else added.
Its a telly so hardly important.

I think now we're about the same place with 4K as we were with HD in 2005

Well no - because our eyes aren't going to be upgraded. Past a certain point the extra information is wasted. SD to HD approaced this point. Going to 4K seems to be beyond the point where it makes a difference.

We're 4m ish from the telly, according to the internet we'd need a 120" TV to *start* being able to tell the difference between HD and 4K. And that's if your eyes are 20/20, which mine aren't.

I don't have a big enough room to warrant 4K, so yes I would prefer to spend the money on smaller bezels and/or better upscale/refresh rates.

I'd prefer to not spent it at all. Some deals available on HD only 60" tellies.

Solely for gaming with my ps4 and virtual reality set up.

We're 4m ish from the telly, according to the internet we'd need a 120" TV to *start* being able to tell the difference between HD and 4K. And that's if your eyes are 20/20, which mine aren't

These general seating distance v screen size need throwing out the window a bit.

I can see the difference between 4K and 1080p on our computer editing systems quite clearly.

The same charts reckon on being 15ft back to be able to tell it's SD for God's sake.

You would easily tell on a 60" TV at normal seating distance. The aggregate of quality from a 4K master (which some aren't) to a 4K display if fabulous. The trouble is cheap 4K tellys like cheap hyper megabit cameras have skewed things.

Being 4M is quite a distance so that's why a big telly is being pushed by the charts.

Consider your sources first and foremost.

I game on pc, to put into context I'm spending £500 upgrading it at Christmas so I game game at 1080 with all games maxed out on graphics settings with fps always above 60fps.. gaming at 4k is hideously expensive due to the gpu power required, im not quite sure how a ps 4 will manage 4k games..very choppy I imagine unless it's not 4k and just upscaled.

I [b]game [/b]on pc, to put into context I'm spending £500 upgrading it at Christmas so I [b]game game [/b]at 1080 with all [b]games [/b]maxed out on graphics settings with fps always above 60fps.. [b]gaming [/b]at 4k is hideously expensive due to the gpu power required, im not quite sure how a ps 4 will manage 4k [b]games[/b]..very choppy I imagine unless it's not 4k and just upscaled.

we sell sky products, freeview products, freesat products, and allsorts of other AV stuff. most things come now branded as 4K ready. we even sell all our own range of HD and cat5/6 stuff branded as 4k ready.
for now and for the far foreseeable future, it is not and wont be needed.
even the great god that is SKY has not decided if they will be broadcasting in 4k.
also, we had the 4k advert thing playing at work for a while, set up against a HD set up. the human eye struggles to tell the 2 apart.

All the [b]games[/b]! Haha!

Having said all this contrast ratio usually has a greater being on quality so get the one with the best native contrast ratio.

even the great god that is SKY has not decided if they will be broadcasting in 4k.

But if you do Netflix, Amazon and are into UHD discs then that won't matter.

sorry rone, i meant broadcast everything in 4k.

If I needed to get a new TV now it would be 4k, however, if I didn't *need* one, I'd wait for the whole 4k thing to sort itself out.

We've had 4k and 4k HDR tvs marketed and there are more, incompatible ? variations to come from the tv sellers in the coming years. Very few sources are 4k, so there is simply no clarity on whether or not your shiny new 4K tv will be the correct flavour of 4k when it is more widely used in 5 years time.

Need = 4k
Want = wait

That's pretty much my take on it.
And what is 4k ready.. does that mean a full 4k screen with high quality panel, or is it a similar con that got pulled with 'HD ready', where you got a crappy panel that was 720 if you were lucky, but it's HD ready, as it would downscale 1080p content.. my 1080p monitor will play 4kUHD content, at 1080... so it's 4k ready, yo.

^^ interesting, did not know that. Thought it meant it was 720 but no 720 yet

I still think HD is silly

Are you my wife? Seriously, I can only watch HD, but not convinced I need 4K yet as I haven't got a a 70 inch telly.

It depends on what TV doesn't it. Is it a budget box made by someone like Blaupunkt or is it an OLED LG panel?

"can't tell the difference between SD and HD", isn't that a bit like saying "can't tell the difference between an Argos (the cheap box shifting dept store with the 'laminated book of dreams') full sus bike and something like an Ibis mojo"?

+1 to the comments on contrast ratio too.

Personally, my next TV will quite likely be a 4k one at around 50" in size. But that fits my requirements.

Your requirements are to buy a TV that'll be for the 'long term'. You need to judge whether 4K will be as well adopted as blu-ray, or risk being stuck with the equivalent of HD discs, or in other words, Betamax.

You would easily tell on a 60" TV at normal seating distance.

I have a 49" 4k TV. When watching a 4K video (through youtube etc) the reality is that I can only truly *see* the extra detail of the 4K when about a foot away from it peeping at the pixels. When at a normal distance, I cant see the extra detail. 1080p is enough.

I think i bought it for the gimmick of it, but reality is that 4K mainstream is a long way off, and in hindsight, a very good quality 1080p TV would have been better money for a better image in terms of colour, contrast etc etc

if you buy one, remember to come to me for you 4k ready leads and cables........ 😆

I'm getting the 60" HD telly that's from a reputable brand and only £600 🙂

When I were a lad, we had a 14" B&W portable, and all these fields were green

got a HD that i bought fro the Olympics (2012) and no reason to upgrade. Might be better to spend the money on glasses. If i take them off the TV becomes SD.

I woudnt buy a cheaper UHD TV at the moment.

High dynamic range and wide colour gamut is just around the corner, literally next year. Most of the cheaper 4K marketed Tvs do not support this.

As above, alot of the UHD tvs on the market will suffer the same fate as all those people that bought the "HD Ready" Tvs, its very much a "UHD Ready" market at the moment.

Recently bought an LG 4k telly after the old Samsung finally threw its hand in.
If I had my £500 back I'd look for an OLED/AMOLED display over any amount of smart or 4k functionality. Picture quality on the LG is generally fine, but it simply can't do black at all. I spent the first week on the phone to customer services cos I thought it was faulty, but it's really just the nature of cheap LED TVs.

I'm in a similar boat. We've still got a CRT TV - flat screen Sony job that seems to be on the way out.
Every now & again one side of it goes a bit blurry & if there is a lot of white on the screen the colour balance sometimes shifts towards magenta quite badly.

Anyhoo - the upshot is that we are thinking about splashing out on a flat screen telly - although annoyingly it isn't 'just' a flat screen telly, is it? Realistically, it'll be telly, stand, soundbar, cables & perhaps a blu-ray player (still rocking a bog standard DVD player).....

There was a thread about this recently & someone who was fairly knowledgeable about it was giving his opinion on where telly's are going.
Apparently 4k and High Dynamic Range are where it's all going, so he was recommending that there is no point going for a 'normal' HD tv.
I seem to remember something being said about the manufacturer's are currently stripping out the 'normal' HD TV's to bring the prices down so the 4k ones can fill the gap - so basically as I remember it, his view was that the current 'normal HD' TVs are all pretty rubbish as they are having all the decent gubbins stripped out of them.

It's all very confusing to be honest.
I don't wanna pay over the odds for a 4K telly, that will never get a 4k source fed to it, or won't be '4k' enough for when it does all take off.
But equally, I don't want to pay less money for a 'normal HD' tv and then find that in 2 years it's already outdated & we are yet again living in luddite land with a TV that is behind the times.....

Tempted to spend about £500 on a 4k telly and just be done. Suspect that's the bottom end of what I should be spending though....

Ton you've just reminded me I was going to email for advice on a splitter for an aerial for 4 TVs and some cable. Was meant to do it to prepare in time for Xmas but I forgot. 😳

Absolutely.

Buy cheap, it all ends up outdated in a couple of years!

I've a 49" 4k TV and can't really tell the difference between 4k and 1080 anyway.

Decent set of speakers makes more difference IMO

Apparently 4k and High Dynamic Range are where it's all going, so he was recommending that there is no point going for a 'normal' HD tv.

I'm cleaning up old tech as it becomes superceded. To save money 🙂

£200 more for an HDR job.

[quote=rone ]However 4K isn't going away. So if money allows get the best 4K you can afford.

Quite apart from all the comments about being able to tell the difference, if you don't currently have 4K sources you're wanting to watch, buying one now for future proofing seems like a bad way to spend money - the chances are it will be cheaper to buy an HD one now and then a 4K one at the point you need that.

More here - http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/4k-uhd-is-it-worth-it

I spent £400 quid on an LG UHD/4K - happy with it and it will get an Xbox thrash on Dec 25th. The only > HD source I've played so far are some youtube vids. Of course the internet may chop the res but the crowd detail in a La Liga match was fantastic. Reality was that there are very few non-4K TVs out there so you'll likely have little choice. For me there's noo way I'd spend more than £500 because it'll be obsolete in 2-3 years - I'll be very unlikely to replace it in less than 5-6 years.

From the thread above

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.

Basically for the same money as 60" HD we could get a 55" one with 4k HDR. We won't spend more than £600.

However 4K isn't going away.

It also hasn't arrived

Broadcasters haven't settled on a spec for 4k, and although there are plenty of 4k cameras about at present, programme makers are required to deliver their content in 1080p.

You can't say with certainty that 4k will be widely adopted. 720 wasn't. The 720 switch was never pressed on my Girlfriends camera because commissioning stations would never have accepted the content, at the time, and for a longtime they'd only take SD even though there were a lot of 720 cameras and TVs about.

Content might just jump on the next resolution or bandwidth constraints might mean things stay pretty much as they are. You're not future proofing if you don't know what the future holds.

The demand created by the makers and owners of TVs doesn't shape the content standards. Aside from Top Gear and the handful of drama's commissioned each year most of telly isn't made by DOP's with an Alexa, a lens that costs more than your house and a full team of operators and grips. Telly is filmed by AP's with a day's camera training and whatever Semi-Pro camcorder the BBC has decided to buy a few thousand of. At the moment its a Canon 305 and the broadcast spec those channels use is shaped around the files that come off the memory card on that camera. That lowest common denominator rather than 'the most expensive telly you can afford' is the driver for progress.

The 'future' will be dictated by whatever 'camera and sound kit that can be operated on auto by someone with a day's training' the BBC decides to buy next. Hopefully its better than the 305 - it can't film skin!.