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

Is it worth it? no.

Not yet.
Not enough content, imo, and by the time there is the tv's will be cheaper.

Edit. I'd imagine sports channels might have 4k content?
Not checked.

OKay, maybe the wrong question. Is it worth it? is very subjective. Is it any better than standard HD?

It's pretty amazing but you need a good tv to show it off. Not all 4K TVs are created equal. Does Netflix throttle back the resolution depending on your broadband? Maybe you weren't actually viewing it at 4K.

You sure you're getting the 4k stream?

How close are you sitting to the TV?

OK tv is 49", i`m sat about 6 - 8ft away.

Sounds like your saying I should be more impressed than I am and it could be a setting issue?

I have been watching "Stranger Things". When the scene is outdoors in good light the picture seems sharp and clear and has a depth that i would expect for 4k. However scenes that are indoors or dimly lit, the picture is poor by any standards, to the point where it seems like its been filmed out of focus.

Does Netflix throttle back the resolution depending on your broadband? Maybe you weren't actually viewing it at 4K.

That was my first thought. How fast is your broadband connection?

From https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

[i]25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality[/i]

So you'll need 25Mbps of [i]surplus [/i]bandwidth - on top of whatever any other devices may be consuming - to be able to get 4K streaming.

However scenes that are indoors or dimly lit, the picture is poor by any standards, to the point where it seems like its been filmed out of focus.

Sounds to me like the screen is struggling to cope with the darker sections.

Have you calibrated the screen using online values or a tool? What TV is it? Fast enough BB?

BB is on the edge at about 25Mbps. Nothing else using the connection while we are watching TV.

To be honest I didnt realise it would require that high. Now TV and other streaming services need about 2Mbps+ so I assumed 4k would be around 8-10Mbps.

The tv is an LG - This one http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-49uh668v-smart-4k-ultra-hd-hdr-49-led-tv-10144965-pdt.html

I saw a demo of it at the Sony Technology Centre a little while ago, obviously they were using their very best TV and a very good source of media, and it was a demo reel filmed especially to show off UHD at it's very best.

It was 'okay' that's it, okay, it wasn't a VHS to DVD, or DVD to Blu-ray leap, it wasn't a SD to HD leap either - IMHO it was more like a Sky Analogue to Digital hop. I didn’t spot it as being UHD until someone mentioned it. I’m sure on paper it’s vastly better and perhaps I should make more of an effort to wear my glasses, but it didn’t rock my world.

Do a test.
Get a nice photo from the internet at 4k or more res.
Save out a 1920x1080 version and browse them using a photo viewing app.
See if you can tell the difference.

it's is a stream, so sacrifices need to be made

As above, IMO if you want 4K quality it's best to have a download or another source and not stream it. We have recently been playing with 720 vs 1080 downloads as we where using a mobile 3/4G wifi device and we found for most programmes 720 was fine on a 44" TV. Also we have fibre running at 200mps and we have frequently found its the source which is throttled, I would not be surprised to find Netflix etc where not actually sending the content fast enough particularly at peak times - easy for them to say "problem must be at your end"

You need a big screen (and watch from a appropriate distance) to appreciate the difference between HD and UHD. Also depends on the individual - some people don't notice the difference between SD and HD, which is far more noticable than HD to UHD to my eyes. I'm watching on a high end (2 month old) Samsung 65 inch, and you can tell the difference between HD and UHD quite clearly. My main (every day) UHD source is Sky Q. 4K blue-rays are on a different level, and are pretty astonishing.

From 'average' viewing distances some of the av mags are suggesting you need at least a 55 inch screen to appreciate the difference.

How is your TV connected to the internet? Might be worthwhile using a wired connection if it is possible, guarantees a fast connection in comparison to wifi. Our TV connects directly over wifi, however, I'm not sure the wifi capability of our TV is great as it sometimes cannot connect when other devices are having no problem.

I find some of the 4K stuff on YouTube excellent quality, but the stuff produced by Amazon and Netflix not quite as good.

If your tv is the same size as it was before you will see NO difference between the two feeds. In order for our eyes being capable of seeing the benefits of 4k tvs the tvs have to be much bigger, the last time I did the calculation for my 50" tv, I would need a 72" tv..... which certainly isn't happening!! That, paired with the fact that theres not much 4k available means no, its not worth it!

BT Sport 4K is pretty impressive, it's 50fps too which makes a difference to sharpness and smoothness, I think Sky Q and Netflix are 25-30fps. The HD upscales is very good too.

Do a [u]completely irrelevant[/u] test.
Get a nice photo from the internet at 4k or more res.
Save out a 1920x1080 version and browse them using a photo viewing app.
See if you can tell the difference.

Due a new 49/50 inch telly too and mulling over the options - problem is now there are more 4k/UHD tellies than HD ones so my concern is if I do end up with one, will it show HD and SD as well as a current decent HD telly or will it in effect be a step backward until I can get 4K content?

Obviously I appreciate that for the same money a decent HD telly will have better 'parts' than a budget 4k and this may be a big consideration. However I do expect we'll keep it long enough for 4k content to become more readily available.

If your tv is the same size as it was before you will see NO difference between the two feeds

Depends on the viewing distance as well so if you are close to the screen you will see the improvement in a feed that is a better match to the pixel count of the screen.

 

TurnerGuy - Member
Do a completely irrelevant test.

Whereas if you can't tell the difference between the images, then all the rest is moot.

Scuttler - the HD content on my 4K TV is much better than on my previous 1080HD tv. If the two TVs are the same quality effectively both should show HD to the same standard. I think my new TV is also a step up in quality over the old one, hence the better HD picture.

BT Sport 4K is pretty impressive, it's 50fps too which makes a difference to sharpness and smoothness, I think Sky Q and Netflix are 25-30fps. The HD upscales is very good too.

Sky Q is 50fps.

UHD by itself is not worth the effort due to the viewing distance being so critical, wait till next year when HDR comes out.

I've found netflix 4k to be no better than the regular Hd stuff, its not the tv because some of the 4k stuff on youtube is miles better. My 40k tv is hardwired to a 50Mbit connection too.

Do a completely irrelevant test.

because it is pictures with no movement between frames - which is where all the compression and reconstruction of the frames goes on, and opportunities for the TV to screw up.

I've seen Sky and BT sports feeds in 4k where the compression artifacts where easily seen on football - but on a freeze frame or slow mo they looked great.

Your TV is the weak point, sorry.

A £499 tv is not going to display ultimate blacks and the peak brightness levels required for true UHD viewing, never mind HDR content.

This pops up from time to time. The simple answer is of course it's worth it. It's better than what we've had before. Four times the resolution of 1080P yields a staggering amount of detail.

It is worth bearing in mind most cinema displays are doing 2K! Bit 2K done very well on high end DLP projectors still looks great.

We shoot with 4K a lot but actually masfer for 1080P as that's still pretty much the delivery standard. We have the ability to shoot 4/5/6K an it's all about getting as much as you can in acquisition. Recently we got to see some 4K stuff projected on a 4K high end projector - it's mind blowing.

However as usual stats don't always give you the correct answer alone. For instance an excellent 1080p display device is likely to wipe the floor with a poor quality 4K device. You need to be seeking out a well implemented 4K set-up , not a 4K in name only Dixon's special. This is why you see folk on both sides of the equation saying 4K is and isn't worth it. But all things being equal a 4K master and good 4K display device is loads better.

Subjectively you have to decide whether you like to be involved in the front line of cutting edge consumer technology and the troubles that can come with it whilst everyone else plays catch up.

But, do you research don't just buy any old 4K display device - try and get some demos in with the source material you are using.

NETFLIX have a remit to originate in at least 4K, this is an excellent example of standards in the industry being pushed and I can't see it going backwards from here.

Take little notice of size/distance charts - I can see the difference on our 23" monitors. If they're good quality it will be there. Though of course the benefit is greater the bigger the screen.

Check out avforums or avsforum in the US.

Appreciate what rone is saying but for the amount of content available and your low (by 4k streaming standards) bandwidth just stick to HD.

4k/UHD is worth it. The question is when. You can't even get 'proper' HD right now - Sky HD is not what i'd call proper HD and neither are any of the internet channels. Technically HD/UHD just means the number of pixels of resolution. BUT that on its own does not necessarily contribute to picture quality. There are a whole host of other parameters involved and most of them are at least or far more important to picture quality than simple resolution. The Pioneer Kuros Plasma display was a standard definition display, but was the benchmark for all Home Cinema displays for a long time even after HD hit the streets.

The only way to get 'proper' HD right now is via Blue Ray, so once UHD/4k Blur Ray is out that will be the case going forward for some time regarding UHD/4k.

The problem with internet channels is that you don't really know what you're getting. You can't be certain you're getting 4k. The internet channels do seem to vary the quality of the signal to match your internet speed to avoid buffering - i've seen this with Netflix, Red Bull TV and iPlayer, so unless you have rock steady high speed Broadband then you might not be getting the best possible quality from your internet channels.

But 4k is the future so if you're buying a TV right now it is worth getting it - as always you're better off spending your money on getting the best display within your budget even if it is a 1080 display, but most TV's above a certain budget are all 4k it seems.

My TV is a 1080/HD set and I can't see me changing it for a good 10 years and i'm sure even then it won't be embarrassing itself. Sure when I walk into a TV shop and they have a UHD set on playing a demo in true 4k it looks amazing, but I know I won't get that in my home for many years, then it will only be available via one or two specialist channels, so i'm in no rush to swap my TV over just for 4k.

Yeah there are bottlenecks. It will all level out eventually. You see there is your situation and there is the general situation. In your circumstances you may be better off going down the 4K blu-ray route if you want an assured solution.

Things always take time to improve as everything plays catch up. At home I have a damn good 1080p/Projector setup and will change when my broadband and projector gets upgraded.

It's just a question of timing.

Technically HD/UHD just means the number of pixels of resolution. BUT that on its own does not necessarily contribute to picture quality

In visual acuity tests, contrast is by far the biggest contributer to perceived quality.

However I'm all for purity of image. Get the system calibrated and the environment good, and this will improve most folk's set-up.

We basically want everything in the chain to be as good as possible. Netflix's streams are great - almost impossible to tell between this and blu-ray. Check out the image quality on Designated Survivor. Also the Crown shot on Sony F55s. Looks amazing. Amazon and NowTV both lag in picture quality stakes.

The only way to get 'proper' HD right now is via Blue Ray, so once UHD/4k Blur Ray is out that will be the case going forward for some time regarding UHD/4k.

4K Blu-ray with HDR has been out for a little while now, disc availability has started to grow.

Netflix's streams are great - almost impossible to tell between this and blu-ray.

Interesting. I see a big step up in quality watching the same film between UHD Sky Q and the 4K HDR blu-ray. Both look good, but the difference is clear.

Your TV is the weak point, sorry.

A £499 tv is not going to display ultimate blacks and the peak brightness levels required for true UHD viewing, never mind HDR content.

I dont buy this. The TV rrp is £800. But regardless if its a 4k tv its a 4k tv. I would expect it to be able to display the right amount of pixels. I`m sure if i had a 4k dvd it would be staggering.

My point is that Netflix 4k is lower resolution to my eyes anyway, than terrestrial HD channels.

Last night i changed my Netflix settings from Auto quality to High. But this made no difference.

But regardless if its a 4k tv its a 4k tv.

in response to the main thread. yes its about content. probably the best use is next gen consoles (if you're a gamer).

Nigh on impossible to get a non-4K telly over £500 quid bar some super high end OLED stuff and even then many of them 2015 models it would appear.

Time for a trip to a telly shop that can play Freeview HD streams and iPlayer.

no! it was already pointed out above. its the contrast ratio thats the factor. "i spent lots so its better" is a silly argument to make.

Not in my case. Like i said the picture is not sharp! Its softer than hd, and possibly even standard channels.

I also disagree that contrast ratio is a factor in my having a sharp picture. It has 4x the number of pixels so should not be a soft image. Are you confusing 4k with HDR?

All the resolution does is enable you to either sit closer to a TV or have a much larger TV without being able to detect the coarseness of the pixels.

If you're sat 1 foot away from a 65" TV then the image will seem pixelated, even at 4k, whereas if you sit 1 foot away from an SD 32" tv then the picture will seem sharper.

So resolution has nothing to do with PICTURE QUALITY specifically. It is to do with maintaining image accuracy/sharpness at close up distances. What HD and UHD TV's allow you do to is either sit closer to a TV or have a larger TV without suffering a degradation in image sharpness.

There are all sorts of technical terms that I don't understand that actually contribute to image quality - I think resolution is about 6th or 7th on the list of top ten most important things for good picture quality.

It is far better to invest in a better quality display whether it be HD or UHD

So resolution has nothing to do with PICTURE QUALITY specifically.

This.

Picture Quality is about an awful lot more than resolution. My old 40" Pioneer Kuro Plasma had a native resolution of 1024x768 - ie it wasn't even a standard 'HD ready' resolution but the picture on it at any sort of normal viewing distance still looks better than the majority of LCD sets I've seen.

Even with a 1:1 pixel map the TV does a fair bit of processing of the picture. Check the settings on your set, switch off all the motion smoothing, noise reduction etc etc. Tweak the colour/contrast/sharpness - you'll probably be best starting with a 'cinema' preset and adjusting from there if it needs it. The 'out of the box' settings for most sets is designed to look good in the bright lights of a shop - overdriven colours, sharpness turned up to max giving an over sharpened picture that can look like Viewranger 3D.

It might even be that you're used to that on HD and the set disables it all for UHD?

Good article on Picture Quality that might help -
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/Elements-Of-Picture-Quality.php

Most sets still fail on black level and contrast.

You are missing my point. My TV is not in question here. A good HD source looks stunning on it, as i am sure would a 4kBD.

The thread is about Netflix 4k and why it looks so poor on a TV that would otherwise display 4k and HD content in a much better way from a different source.

I totally get that streaming services will never be able to compete with hard copies. The problem as I see it is that 4k is percieved as a premium quality offering, but the reality is that it is far from it.

Interesting. I see a big step up in quality watching the same film between UHD Sky Q and the 4K HDR blu-ray. Both look good, but the difference is clear.

Sorry, I'm referring to 1080p streams.

All the resolution does is enable you to either sit closer to a TV or have a much larger TV without being able to detect the coarseness of the pixels.

Not quite, resolution is about resolving detail - ultimately from the sensor to your display.

Resolution starts in camera.

What it's worth bearing in mind - is some top-tier acquisition cinema cameras such as the Arri Alex, only resolve around 2K - that's pretty much de facto
for lots of films these days. So 4K is not so much wasted as a bit ahead of the game for the consumer. But its always been like that.

However Red Weapon is now capable of 8K. So the future is upwards of 4K!

Picture Quality is about an awful lot more than resolution.

+1

"Not yet.
Not enough content, imo, and by the time there is the tv's will be cheaper."

These are exactly my thoughts. I was marvelling at the quality of some 4K tvs in John Lewis last week, but the infrastructure isn't there yet to deliver the content even if it were available. 4K is little more than a gimmick for people to show off, at the moment.

We only replaced out CRT tv a coupe of years ago, with a lovely Panasonic Viera HD flat screen thing. With a bit of luck, it'll last us well until stuff like 4K is well established.

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.