Would you buy a non-4K TV?

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I’m cleaning up old tech as it becomes superceded.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.

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!.

Again – not read the whole thread – I only buy consumer electronics secondhand generally so I would buy a non 4k tv and only if the current telly stops working and can’t be fixed for a reasonable amount

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.

I’m not sure I understand you.

If you mean broadcaster in terms of ITV then yes you have a point.

But actually you are very wrong about acquisition. 4K is often used anyway even if delivery is 1080 and the standards are very well defind. (I think the Beeb added our 4K Red cameras to their broadcasting papers over 6 years ago.)

For instance Netflix absolutely demands 4K for their original content. Now unless you live under a rock Netflix is likely to be considered part of your viewing.

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

Sounds like to me you’re conflating “telly” with homes under the hammer and regional news.

The handful of programs you talk about will almost certainly be the ones shot on Alexa or Red Epic/Weapon and they do shape TV – things like broadchurch etc. Not to mention the natural stuff which has been acquired on 4K for ages.

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.

Well it will down to money and quanlity of the set won’t it? If you can get a nice 4K that delivers a good 1080p signal for the right money – why not?

If you’re only ever going to be HD based than stick with 1080.

Folk just need to look at what’s out there.

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

What do the reviews say? Can you audition both?

Picture quality on the LG is generally fine, but it simply can’t do black at all

Yes this is a problem.

I finally bought a tv yesterday after having this dilemma for a while. Having searched lists in argos, john lewis, richer sounds etc I found that a lot of the options weren’t really in stock any way and I ended up with a 4k one as most of the other options weren’t available

Again – not read the whole thread – I only buy consumer electronics secondhand generally so I would buy a non 4k tv and only if the current telly stops working and can’t be fixed for a reasonable amount so I’ll make a completely useless comment which is actually a subtle dig in the ribs at your capitalist greed

FTFY

I just bought a new TV. Went for 4K, got a PS4 Pro coming, but it’s ‘only’ 40″, and ‘only’ cost £400 (Samsung KU6400), so I’m not expecting earth shattering improvement. to me it looked good though. It is appreciably better than the 10 year old £1000 Sony D3000 it replaced. I imagine 4K is going to be a bit of a gimmick, more like 3D than HD, which is pretty ubiquitous now.

Even if it does look better, even with HD, it doesn’t fundamentally enhance my enjoyment. I start a film and think ‘wow, look at that detail’, then I enjoy the film. That said, mrs njee20 has commented that non-HD stuff looks worse on he new TV. I don’t think it does, but there’s a greater difference to the HD.

There’ll always be new technology around the corner, as long as you’re happy with what you’re buying, crack on I say!

I ended up with a 4k one as most of the other options weren’t available

Yes. I was hoping for deals on non-4K tellies but this was the only one in 60″. Samsung UE60J6240.

Things I am looking forward to most:

Decent size
Freeview HD
Watching streamed content without hearing the PS3 fan

I’m waiting to see if the 1080P OLED I want goes in the sale as most arent interested in it.

Buy a 4K TV.

It’ll make me feel marginally better about putting my back out lugging Grass Valley’s servers around the office so Bernie could decide whether he wanted to broadcast F1 in 4k or not.

It’ll be an option to watch a lot of stuff in 4k soon enough, this time round people are used to the idea of buying a HD/UHD/4K TV (last time around we had digital, HD and flatscreens all within the lifetime most people would expect of a TV!) and the costs aren’t stratospheric (there are already cheaper crapper ones for little more than 1080p for bragging rights). Content’s filmed in 4k, the servers, switches and desks are all able to process it, and the only remaining hurdle is broadcasting it. Which if you’re streaming it, isn’t a problem because the capacity can grow with demand (1 person streaming 4k won’t break your data centre, 30million might but you’ve got 5 years before that’s a reality).

When HD came along you were battling decades of SD hardware and nothing being compatible, this time around it’s just a matter of processing power.

It’ll be an option to watch a lot of stuff in 4k soon enough

Yes, but how will I be able to tell if I’m watching it?

It’s £200 extra on a £550 purchase for me. So what, a third more expensive.

Which if you’re streaming it, isn’t a problem

It’s a problem for us because we can only get 3mbps until they upgrade our street. Which they show no sign of doing.

trust me, anyone banking on and buying expensive stuff for 4k, may be very disappointed in the future.
to view 4k, the thing you are viewing needs to be filmed in 4k. this is not happening.

I’ve not read every post in this thread, but does anyone thing there’s a point that becomes counter productive?

I mean, we have a 4k TV, and I’m not really sold on it. At times it can look great, but much of the time it just shows up the makeup on peoples faces, and makes costumes on expensive film sets look really crap. The level of detail all too often detracts from the overall experience, making it feel fake.

Know nothing about HDR TVs or any of that mentioned above, but that kind of stuff possibly sounds a more interesting route than having zillions of pixels.

trust me, anyone banking on and buying expensive stuff for 4k, may be very disappointed in the future.
to view 4k, the thing you are viewing needs to be filmed in 4k. this is not happening

TV types up there ^^ reckon it is. Me – I’ve no idea, but I agree it’ll be a while before Look North is filmed and beamed in 4k.

TV types who do it for a job, or TV types who are internet ‘experts’.

😆

For the cost of a decent 4K LCD TV you can have an absolutely stunning 1080p OLED job. I know which one I’d choose, and it’s not the LCD.

I think you’ve got to spend upwards of £2k on an LCD TV that even comes close to matching the cheapest OLED panel.

you can have an absolutely stunning 1080p OLED job

They’re hard to find though. Possibly the odd 2015 model but good luck getting any choice!

Hopefully in the next few years we can upgrade to a colour one and sod the expense of the license.

Cheapest OLED tv even in the smaller size is £1300.

Sticking with my Pioneer Plasma until it goes pop. Still fabulous picture and it’s about 12 years old.

I’m sure I know the answer to this, but any reason why I shouldn’t buy a cheap wall mount from Amazon? It’s just a metal bracket, I don’t fancy shelling out £50 for one.

trust me, anyone banking on and buying expensive stuff for 4k, may be very disappointed in the future.
to view 4k, the thing you are viewing needs to be filmed in 4k. this is not happening.

Yes it is.

@thisisnotaspoon Grass Valley you say? Do you work for them or with them?

to view 4k, the thing you are viewing needs to be filmed in 4k. this is not happening

More and more stuff *is* getting filmed in 4K. The camera kit isn’t expensive any more and it potentially future proofs the footage. How much will actually ever be transmitted in 4k and whether there’s any benefit to the audience is another matter.

HDR will have a greater visual impact and the tech still isn’t locked down. The BBC trials only work on a tiny number of sets.

However, choice of really good HD sets is limited. Look at the reviews/recommendations on http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/ and see if you can pick up one of their older recommendations.

Yes it is.

where and who?

Ordered. Arrives tomorrow.

I think it’s going to be awesome. Star wars day I think.

where and who?

Why?
https://fstoppers.com/originals/6-reasons-shoot-4k-video-even-if-you-cant-view-it-yet-77535
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/11/heres-why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-before-shooting-4k (comments)

What? I believe –

Planet Earth
House of Cards
Breaking Bad
Later series of Game of Thrones
for some reason I thought sitcom Catastrophe was.

http://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a538722/amazon-studios-to-make-all-original-shows-in-4k-uhd-from-2014/

Would you buy a 26inch wheeled bike?

the things you had stated are all uhd. uhd is not 4k

where and who?

BBC Natural History such as Planet Earth II.
Many Netflix dramas such as House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Crouching Tiger, Narcos
Amazon content – Alpha House, Transparent
Lots of movies.
BT Sport stuff
Sky Sports stuff
The BBC filmed some games from the 2014 World Cup in 4k as trials so I would expect them to be filming others in 4K even though they aren’t ready to broadcast.

the things you had stated are all uhd. uhd is not 4k

Haven’t you got that the wrong way around – “4K is a professional production and cinema standard, while UHD is a consumer display and broadcast standard”

In answer to OP, yes.

When I see 4K demos in Currys on those HUGE 72″ screens (or whatever they are), I am impressed. I then get home and watch SD channels on my 42″ plasma and don’t think “I wish this was better”. To be honest I’m not as blown away by the difference between SD and HD broadcasts as others, so I’m probably not the target eyesight market for 4K.

It arrived. Needed both delivery men to carry it upstairs…

What did you buy in the end?

they’re prolly actors but you wouldn’t get this reaction in SD (well I suppose you would if you paid them)