Totally confused by every forum I’ve read on this subject, most AV forums say stick with 1080p but my son’s telling me to get the 4K! Similar price point what do you reckon?

Here they are;

LG 49UB820V

and

Samsung 48H6670 or 6700

There’s very little 4K stuff about to watch but just wondered if the upscaling from 1080p to 4K is worth it – I don’t use Xboxes etc or watch blu-rays.

Ta Guys n Gals

Thinking of upgrading myself. I do however have an Xbox and would be interested in peoples opinion on this. Good price on the LG one.
Would be interested if anyone knows anything about refresh rates on the 4k ones as this looks pretty good for gaming sport viewing etc. Are the figures real though as at present I’ve got plasma which is getting on a bit but still has a very good refresh rate. 600 I think.

4k is stunning if you’re watching native 4k content. The problem is there isn’t any and won’t be for done time – there is hardly that much true 1080p content even now (only Blue Ray really, Sky HD is 1080i) and how long has 1080 been around. The question then becomes how good is the picture when upscaleing from a standard def or high def source. I found through the demos I had recently that an upscaled picture on a £3k 4k set is no better than the upscaled picture on a top spec 1080 set. I think 4k is the future but it’s a good 5 to 8 years away yet and by then a new screen technology will be around to replace current LED backlit LCD. I ended up going for a 1080 plasma (probably the last) over a 4k set. The picture was far better than upscaled 4k.

There are a number of aspects that makeup the overall picture quality. Screen resolution is only about the 4th most important aspect.

Wouldn’t you have to sit inconveniently (for a normal living room) close to even a 49″ screen for your eyes to be able to resolve a difference between 1080 and 4k anyway? Carlton Bale’s chart below suggests you’ll start to see a difference if you’re within about 6ft, and you’ll enjoy the full benefit at about 3ft or less.

So I’d go 1080!

4k is stunning if you’re watching native 4k content. The problem is there isn’t any and won’t be for done time – there is hardly that much true 1080p content even now (only Blue Ray really, Sky HD is 1080i) and how long has 1080 been around. The question then becomes how good is the picture when upscaleing from a standard def or high def source.

+1

Better a good 1080 TV now than a 1st gen 4k tv that has nothing to display in 4k and won’t for some time. By the time you actually get 4k stuff available that LG tv will be considered an antique.

My old Philips died a horrible death so I briefly looked at some replacement options in John Lewis and the 42in version of the LG was the slimmest, non intrusive and best picture quality so, after 4 minutes, it’s was on its way home. Great tele, web os is brilliant and it has apps n everything, Great.

4k is the future.
The only problem is that broadcast TV is in the present and that means 1080i at best.
A 4k TV is like having a colour telly when the broadcasts are in black and white.

A hunch tells me that graph is wrong. 6 foot to see a difference in a 49 inch 1080p monitor? Someone got their maths wrong as I can clearly see the difference on a 32 over 6 feet.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

if it’s a smart tv 4k makes multi-screen browsing really nice, 1080p in on corner and a nice hi def browser window… bit like this

Just bought a Panasonic 4k tv, fantastic picture quality, probably overkill, but are still pleased with our purchase.
On a side note, we have a projector setup with 120″ screen, the projector is only 720p, picture quality is still pretty impressive though.
The advantage with 4k is if you have any dead pixels they are so small you wouldn’t see them.

We decided to wait until the 4k thing settles down. We don’t watch that much TV but wanted better than the cheap LED we had.
Bought one of the last Samsung plasma screens. They will honour the warranty despite not making them any more. The screen is as good as a top end LED but less than half the price. We’re about 10ft from the screen so we can’t see the pixels at 720p. It’ll last a couple of years easily and that should be time to see if 4k takes off.

A hunch tells me that graph is wrong

Possibly, the workings are in the main article though. I still think few people are likely to be able to set up a living room to take full advantage of 4k unless they use a projector.

Sorry I just posted something very similar.

I had 40 inch Samsung,and recently had an upgrade to 55inch Sony w829. JL slashed the price and added free soundbar at overall cost of 850, it was a no brained. According to av forums that specific model is a top end 1080hd tv screen. I was loyal to Samsung for so many years but picture quality of Sony is better hands down.

4k TV are triple price and no better with standard or HD channels.

Thing with upscaling is,

You can’t just magically add detail that isn’t there in the first place. Upscaling does some clever maths to make a low resolution image display sensibly on a higher-resolution display but all you’re really doing is compensating for discrepancies between the display and its source. This isn’t Bladerunner.

A 4K display with a 4K source is an incredible thing, and is no doubt the future (for about a fortnight until until 16K displays are announced). But where are you getting your 4K source material from? By the time it’s commonplace (bearing in mind how long it’s taken HD to become widespread and we’re still having to change channels to get regional programming in SD in between HD feeds) a 4K panel will cost you a tenth of what you’ll pay for one today and will stand a fighting chance of actually working with whatever new standards they eventually settle on.

A lot of people are shooting 4K video, just because a) they can, both with RED video cameras, and high-end mirrorless DSLR cameras, and b) because it gives lots of headroom for editing then downscales nicely to regular broadcast quality.
There is talk that next year Sony will introduce a mirrorless DSLR that will shoot 8K video. One might well ask why.
Well, it’ll shoot around 64frames/sec, up to 250/sec, compared to a regular motor-drive at a maximum of 12frames/sec, but it will be possible to go through frame by frame, and pick the perfect shot which will be a 33m/pixel image, so one camera can be used for sports/action/electronic news gathering, and produce single frames for publishing of a high enough quality to put up on a billboard.
The current A7S can shoot 4K video at 12600ISO, producing astonishing video of aurora, so it may not be as long before 4K stuff becomes more readily available.
And Sony have just announced a new generation of even more whizzy chips for cameras, so things are kinda hotting up right now.
I’d love a Sony A7S!

Been doing some estimating of Carls numbers in my head and they just seem way off compared to everyone else.

Interesting read

http://www.swift.ac.uk/about/files/vision.pdf

I think the true formula for how much more better the screen is involves factoring the number of hours spent on AV forums, the price you paid over the lower resolution model and the square of the price of your directional digital cable.

Until there is anything decent on 4k and a delivery method to get it to the set that is efficient then it’s probably not worth it.

http://www.allaboutabundance.com/?p=1056

Anyone see any problems with these calculations? I’m going **** OCD now.