Is 4k worth it. The difference is about $200

[ChadT41]

Where I live,the IP's(WOW,AT&T DSL) don't have the bandwidth available(WOW has 12GB speed & AT&T DSL has 6GB speed) to justify getting a 4K TV yet. Of course,i can't tell you how long HD was out before my then cable company started providing it. I might as well live in Elbonia.

Do you mean Megabits? 6 and 12 gigabits is quite fast!!!

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

Do you mean Megabits? 6 and 12 gigabits is quite fast!!!

Whatever equals SLOW,that's what I have. I just know that it's not enough to give me 4k.

 

[harshness]

My friend who is testing it says it is working very well and it looks like it will start rolling out on January 15th.

Keeping in mind that what Comcast rolls out in one market may take some time to reach all markets. My market has never seen support for external hard drives.

 

[patmurphey]

What does the One Connect box provide?

I checked out the One Connect box in the Samsung site. Looks like a neat feature but I don't think I would use anything it provides or at least I don't now.

The included One Connect box does the processing and provides the ports in the new Samsungs. The latest SEK3500U is available to upgrade 2013 and 2014 TVs to the latest standard. (The base models are not included and the 2015 base models with the mini will have a limited upgrade path.) Later upgrades will be available without buying the entire TV.

 

[charlesrshell]

The included One Connect box does the processing and provides the ports in the new Samsungs. The latest SEK3500U is available to upgrade 2013 and 2014 TVs to the latest standard. (The base models are not included and the 2015 base models with the mini will have a limited upgrade path.) Later upgrades will be available without buying the entire TV.

Thanks

 

[BBruin66]

HD Blu Ray is more then Good enough.
You have an extremely good picture.

It doesn't need to be better.
4K is just another technology that good for making people spend more money.
Nothing more.
HD was a break through.
4K and 8K is not.

A person only has so much Eye sight.

And everyone's viewing distance/TV Size/eyesight is the same?!?!?!?!

Current Blu-Ray is good enough? So you go to a theater, and tell yourself, "I'd rather not have this at home, this is TOO good."

The options that HEVC brings

Your generalizations of what the consumer can have are crazy. You talk like someones not allowed to have something better than you.

 

[BBruin66]

I was reading about whether 4K is really worth getting. With what size tv is it worth buying if you stay 5-15 feet away from the television? I am trying to decide on whether to get a 65-70" 1080p Black Friday deal or a 60-65" UHD television. I know that the smaller televisions may not make as big of a difference as the larger televisions.

Was also wondering how much the projectors have advanced and if they still require bulb replacement every 3000 hours. This is why I did not buy a projector last time and also due to the dark environment that you had to be in to view them.

Projectors have gotten cheaper and better, but not for 4k. Texas Instruments who make most DLP chips, has not shown progress in releasing a 4k chip. The current RGB:RGB DLP projectors are very good, and cheaper than TVs for the size. They do still require some light control, and obviously a home theater setup (Receiver, speakers, some sort of smart/source box) whereas these TVs include all that. I WOULD have stayed with a projector (my HD20 sill sits above my head ) but 4k was near $10,000 and that was entry level. I'm sure we all know the quality of TV that we can get for that price

 

[BBruin66]

I tend to agree, but we should give UHD it's due. It will have a greater range between the darkest and lightest, allowing us to see details in shadows that we can't today. And the range of colors will be noticeably better, from about 35% of human color perception to about 75%. Granted, some lower cost ones won't do that today, and perhaps that will persist.

Another thing it allows, and has been demoed, is the ability to show two completely different programs on the screen at the same time. Granted, you both have to be wearing glasses and headphones, but you and your spouse can watch two different shows on the same TV at the same time. I don't know of anyone actually selling a TV with that capability.

And, in theory, they can develop it to make much better 3D, possibly glasses free. This would be related to the previous paragraph.

Greater resolution? Except as how it allows some of the above, MEH!

All this stuff doesn't require a 4k panel though and has been done before.

1. HDR can easily be seen on 1080, but requires the new codec spec and image processor (these are basically manufactured exclusively for 4k TVs)
2. Sony's 'SimulView' 1080 TV for PS3 did this in 2011, and it requires active shutter glasses to be worn, and a machine capable of sending this "double content". So far just a handful of PS3 games.
3. Nintendo 3DS has glasses free 3d since 2011, although at a 400x240 resolution, but that is more a limitation to the device, rather than the 3D. Glasses free is a fine tech, but it's basically only good for one user

Better 3D is a known benefit of 4k, because.... higher resolution!!! THE thing that the naysayers claim doesn't matter.

 

[BBruin66]

My whole second paragraph? My answer boils down to it not being a gimmick as much as is it worth it. The technology is better, period. When there is 4K broadcast i would not hesitate to buy a 4K tv. Will people sit close enough is a valid question, but no more than getting a dolby digital tuner and the user only using two cheap speakers.

I just don't get how sitting closer to something is a gimmick? Sure there's shady sales people that will sell you whatever, even if you tell them you're buying 40" and sit 15 feet away.

But it's not magic... it's not pseudo-science... it's like the eyechart... you can't see the bottom line? Move closer.

**Full Disclosure** I realize this doesn't work in many people's living situations, but it can work in many. It doesn't mean we can't have 4k. Choice is great! 4k TVs are barely more expensive than 1080 ones.

 

[Troch77]

And everyone's viewing distance/TV Size/eyesight is the same?!?!?!?!

Current Blu-Ray is good enough? So you go to a theater, and tell yourself, "I'd rather not have this at home, this is TOO good."

The options that HEVC brings

Your generalizations of what the consumer can have are crazy. You talk like someones not allowed to have something better than you.

That chart you posted didn't really help your cause, while at the same time supported mine.

I sit about 10 feet from my 60 inch tv.

8 feet from my 40 inch while I'm laying in bed.

My kids are about 8 feet from their 32 inch tvs.

Most people don't sit 5-6 feet from their 60 inch tvs or even their 40 inch tvs for that matter.

Maybe you do.

So by your logic, I should drop those 32 inch tvs ,Buy 2 -4K 60 inch tvs ,
and drop my 40, and 60 inch tvs and buy another 60 inch tv and a 75 inch 4K tvs????

Not that much more expensive?
$200 to 300 average higher on a 50 inch or less tv.
55 inch or Higher the cost is more then $300 different.
Not only that your getting a Crappy entry-level TV that 4k.

Sorry I'd rather have the Higher 1080p model.

 

[Tampa8]

I just don't get how sitting closer to something is a gimmick? Sure there's shady sales people that will sell you whatever, even if you tell them you're buying 40" and sit 15 feet away.

But it's not magic... it's not pseudo-science... it's like the eyechart... you can't see the bottom line? Move closer.

**Full Disclosure** I realize this doesn't work in many people's living situations, but it can work in many. It doesn't mean we can't have 4k. Choice is great! 4k TVs are barely more expensive than 1080 ones.

That's what you got out of my post "My answer boils down to it not being a gimmick as much as is it worth it. The technology is better, period. When there is 4K broadcast i would not hesitate to buy a 4K tv." ? That I think it is a gimmick?
I do think people think they are seeing more resolution when they are not, but that includes with 1080 sets. A better picture, though subjective I don't necessarily disagree as I posted. Newer sets tend to have better technology to give a better picture, better blacks, better color, better contrast, etc. But I just don't get the resistance that the human eye can only see so much, we know just just about at what distance to what size you can see certain resolutions. We know at what distances we can see certain colors, etc etc...

 

[jcoppola]

Who here has a 4k and the Hopper? Since in the near term most of the content will be up converted does the hopper up converted look noticeably better, worse or the same?

 

[Bobby]

4k is still in testing. Nobody is going to answer your question.

 

[jcoppola]

No, how do 4k TVs up converted picture of the Hoppers 1080i output look.

 

[Bobby]

No, how do 4k TVs up converted picture of the Hoppers 1080i output look.

Oh, My mistake, Awaiting answers....

 

[dangue]

Who here has a 4k and the Hopper? Since in the near term most of the content will be up converted does the hopper up converted look noticeably better, worse or the same?

Hopper and a 4K tv here. Upscaling looks good. Better than how the Hopper output looked on the previous 1080p TV. But, not as good as native 4K content from Netflix. 65" tv from eight feet away.

 

[jcoppola]

Thank you. Encouraging

 

[KAB]

Thank you. Encouraging

Well, how realistic is everyday viewing on a 65" screen in an average room from eight feet away???

 

[ChadT41]

Well, how realistic is everyday viewing on a 65" screenin a normal room from eight feet away???

I have my man chair 5-8' away from a 55". If I get a 65", it will be the same. It is the only place to put it, since my three peice couch takes up the other walls.

 

[KAB]

I have my man chair 5-8' away from a 55". If I get a 65", it will be the same. It is the only place to put it, since my three peice couch takes up the other walls.

That makes me feel claustrophobic.