Is 4k worth it. The difference is about $200
- Thread starter robertjp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 17K
So the price difference is NOT good 1080 to crappy 4k. It's good 1080 to good 4k.
OP posted his TVs:
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN50JS7000FXZA $799
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN50J6300AFXZA $629
The 4k TV is better, disregarding the resolution.
"By my logic" you should buy a 4k TV when you're in the market for a new TV.
Never have I stated that you should upgrade any existing televisions just because you can.
Lastly, my post shows that YOU don't benefit from 4k and your current sitting distance & TV size. Yet again, you take this to mean 4k is superfluous to America.
I didn't have a comparable size 1080 TV, but to me it looks the same. The picture quality of my new TV is far better than the old, which means I notice a lot more compression on Dish. The dark scenes on Pirates of the Caribbean on FX today was ALLL about those Macro blocks
. But that's not 4k's fault. I don't have an picture enhancements on though so i'm not sure how much "upscaling" could occur. I'm just letting a 1x1 1080 pixel be 2x2 4k pixels.1080i content looks great when the macro is not there. Again not 4k but, just a testament to the newest image processors in TVs. No interlacing noticeable at all.
It's also perfect for seeing the most out of 1080!
Not that you'd get that amazing 1080 with Dish!
Blu-Ray, yes.
I sit about 8' away from my older Mitsubishi 65" DLP (DIRECTV) in my 3D room and 8' from my 65" Sony 4k,(Dish & DIRECTV) noticeable difference in quality with OTA on Dish and Satellite from DIRECTV... much better on the Sony 4k.
Gotta remember, those charts are based on resolution - numbers that Marketing loves.
But more important, IMHO, is HDR and WCG. So I can see details in the shadows, and better colors. Going from 35% to 75% of human eyesight color perception is not something to be ignored.
And I don't think today's UHD TVs are as fully compliant with the latest HDCP, etc, specs. Nor do they all actually display the wider color gamut.
Today's UHD TVs are for people with money to burn, or at least to easily spare. I just can't see buying one today, knowing full well that in one year better TVs will be out for less money. And even more so two years down the road. I don't want a year of some satisfaction at the price of years of regret.
But more important, IMHO, is HDR and WCG. So I can see details in the shadows, and better colors. Going from 35% to 75% of human eyesight color perception is not something to be ignored.
And I don't think today's UHD TVs are as fully compliant with the latest HDCP, etc, specs. Nor do they all actually display the wider color gamut.
Today's UHD TVs are for people with money to burn, or at least to easily spare. I just can't see buying one today, knowing full well that in one year better TVs will be out for less money. And even more so two years down the road. I don't want a year of some satisfaction at the price of years of regret.
Not all projectors are DLP. Sony and JVC still offer LCOS models that are relatively spiffy.
The JVC "4K" models are actually 1080p arrays that jiggle something to give the impression of 4K.
Doubling the density of DLP mirrors seems like a very difficult proposition. Maybe arrays that are twice as big in height and width are the answer.
Alas, there's no way to get content that delivers HDR and WCG so attributing the differences to those features is a fool's errand.
Looks like my 1.5 X diagonal measure factor was pretty close to the truth although it goes down as the panel size gets unreasonably large.
All of Crutchfields TVs have at least on HDMI 2.0 HDCP2.2 compliant input:
http://www.crutchfield.com/g_380850/4K-Ultra-HD-TVs.html
There's 72 TVs there including the UN50JS7000 OP mentioned in the thread for $799
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_30550J7000/Samsung-UN50JS7000.html?tp=60890
HDR isn't as clearly stated though. Samsungs SUHD tech should support it, but not listing it makes me suspicious. Samsung does have those modular internals... but...
I think if you buy a 4k TV you need to get it with HDR, unless you plan to buy again in a year or two. HDR will take longer to catch on than 4k (although I think most UHD Blu-ray will have it for new films), but will be appreciable and any distance.
However, I would bet it is only 4k TVs and HDMI2.0a devices that see support for it. HDR will be a good way for the industry to force people into a 4k/HDMI2.0a upgrade in the name of PQ, not just resolution. And since it requires HDMI 2.0, and (almost) all HDR content is 4k, why make a 1080 TV with HDMI 2.0a?
I just bought a Vizio 70" 1080p for $900 on Black Friday. I hope I made the right decision. I paid $1900 for my Samsung 67" Led DLP several years ago and it suffered from the white/black dot DMD chip issue. I thought about getting the $200 chip to fix it. Samsung refused to fix it even though I threatened class action lawsuit a few times. The picture quality is better on my Vizio with a brighter more detailed picture.
I was looking at the 4K televisions but would have had to gotten a smaller size and pay more money. With a viewing distance of 10' or more I don't know if I would have had a better viewing experience. With the other enhancements that they have brought to the 4K I wonder how it would have been compared to my Vizio that I just bought.
I was looking at the 4K televisions but would have had to gotten a smaller size and pay more money. With a viewing distance of 10' or more I don't know if I would have had a better viewing experience. With the other enhancements that they have brought to the 4K I wonder how it would have been compared to my Vizio that I just bought.
Last edited:
As I said I'm 10 feet from my 60 inch.That makes me feel claustrophobic.
And I have absolutely no intentions of going bigger.
In fact the 55 inch we had was good enough.
Only reason I took a 60 is because the Vizio was running a Promo on this particular model.
But if I had a living room that had a viewing range of 6 feet, I would most likly have a 43 or 48 inch max.
Certainly not a 60 or 70 inch tv.
I am 12' from my 61" JVC LCoS. If I'd known they were discontinuing the 70", I'd have bought one before they disappeared.
I expect in a couple years, all things allowing, we'll be buying a 65" something.
BTW, my TV has been flashing the replace bulb warning for over three years but it's still going strong. 11 years and still on second bulb.
I expect in a couple years, all things allowing, we'll be buying a 65" something.
BTW, my TV has been flashing the replace bulb warning for over three years but it's still going strong. 11 years and still on second bulb.
Samsung - $597 for the 2014 TV, $274 for the sek3500 One Connect, pretty good for now.
From BBruin66's link:
*****note: you must have a 2015 HDR capable tv/ or a samsung with the sek3500 upgrade in order to decode and display HDR content. How your tv displays the HDR contents is dependent on your tv panels capabilities (dimming, nits, color space size).
From BBruin66's link:
*****note: you must have a 2015 HDR capable tv/ or a samsung with the sek3500 upgrade in order to decode and display HDR content. How your tv displays the HDR contents is dependent on your tv panels capabilities (dimming, nits, color space size).
The list doesn't offer particulary broad appeal (except for Amazon that isn't supported internally by some brands) and the caveat about the TVs that these features may work with must not be ignored.
There is also no mention of WCG.
