4K Worth It?

[sholling]

If you are going to go 4K then I'd with a newer HDR (High Dynamic Range) set. Content is limited for now but I think it's the next big step in quality.

[joefrank64k]

4K Worth It?

which one? in feb, i got my dad this one at costco:

http://www.costco.com/Samsung-75%22-Class-(74.5%22-Diag.)-4K-Ultra-HD-Smart-LED-LCD-TV-UN75JU650DFXZA.product.100172088.html

it was open box and on rebate so i saved quite a bit.

This one: http://www.costco.com/Samsung-55%22-...100225062.html

They were running a $500 instant rebate at the time. Great deal on a great tv.

FWIW, IIRC, for Samsung TVs, the tiers are: 6 series/7 series/8 series for good/better/best. For ex: My model number is "JS700" so it's a 7 series.

This was the 6 Series I was considering: http://www.costco.com/.product.100171415.html

[NYT]

FWIW: The Samsung 4K I got is listed as Super-UHD (S-UHD).

Dynamic HDR, 120hz refresh at all resolutions (some "120hz" sets are only 120hz at 1080p and only 60hz at 4K), and a few other doodads.

which one? in feb, i got my dad this one at costco:

http://www.costco.com/Samsung-75%22-Class-(74.5%22-Diag.)-4K-Ultra-HD-Smart-LED-LCD-TV-UN75JU650DFXZA.product.100172088.html

it was open box and on rebate so i saved quite a bit.

[holt7153]

What kind of variance have you seen from manufacturers with respect to reporting specifications?

Contrast ratio

[joefrank64k]

FWIW: The Samsung 4K I got is listed as Super-UHD (S-UHD).

Dynamic HDR, 120hz refresh at all resolutions (some "120hz" sets are only 120hz at 1080p and only 60hz at 4K), and a few other doodads.

[ExtremeX]

I don't have a 4k TV set yet, but I do have a 4k computer monitor... its essentially like having 4 x 1080p screens worth pixel assuming you don't scale anything. I wish more of the TVs came with display port connectivity since it seems like it has way more application in the PC world.

With larger TV sets, at least the ones coming out of as of late, you start to realize how little resolution 1080p really is. Assuming prices are within reason I would personally opt for a 4k TV even if I played mainly 1080p content because some of the upscaled images actually look pretty good, at least better than a 1080p set, but a far cry from a demo disc with 4k content.

[Germz]

4k is absolutely beautiful.

I bought my 4K 55" smart tv for $600 on black Friday.

[NYT]

better chart:

[billvau]

Our old 61" Samsung DLP TV set is dying. I need to replace. Intend to go with 65", with a viewing distance of 10-1/2 feet. Will 4k content, the little that there is, be any better looking than 1080 at that viewing distance? If not, then I will just get a cheaper 1080p set, unless 4k is going to have a lot more content fairly soon. I am looking at the Samsung KS8000.

Phil

Don't know Samsung Models. But, 4K "can" be worth it if the TV or your AVR has 4K upscaling (upconverting). Then, everything improves as much as they possibly can with current technology. Other thing is 4K TVs get all of their latest other technologies.

But, don't buy for 4K content. Very little available relative to everything else. I treat my TV as a "monitor" that has to be balanced by the AVR, DVD, streaming (ROKU for me) and speakers. You can have a 4K TV without an AVR or speakers to match and you'll get no improvement from your previous TV!

[gogohopper]

4k and UHD aren't the same.

http://4k.com/resolution/

[castgold]

Speaking of which, this is an area it took me a lot of reading to understand what is out there and what is offered. Every manufacturer is different in how they present their numbers, it is really annoying.

What kind of variance have you seen from manufacturers with respect to reporting specifications? I didn't really spend enough time comparing to see that. I just went to Costco and picked one on Black Friday because I'm lazy.

[cowtown]

Not to get too bogged down in this, but you're looking for a clearcut answer to a sliding scale question. 4K is one component of quality - color gamut, image bandwidth, artifacting, pulldown conversions, etc. all play a part.

And of course that chart does not take eyesight into account - it's a guideline just like anything else out there, including looking at floor models at the Best Buy (where lighting conditions and video setups are going to be wildly different from your home).

Anyway, given what you've said so far, and the small price difference, I'd get an HDR-capable 4K set so you're not doubting your purchase later on. It's really not that big a step up in cost these days. AVSFORUM is where the real techies go to debate this stuff, but you can lose your mind doing research too. Ask me how I know.

[damngato]

We upgraded from a 55 LG LED to the Samsung UN65JS8500 65-Inch 4k and it looks amazing. Couldn't be happier with the purchase. Tried the 3D glasses once and didn't like them. As others have said, it sometimes looks too lifelike.

[Phil3]

"...the image quality between 1080p and 4k from 10 feet is night and day...

Thank you! This is precisely what I am trying to reconcile. Everything I read, and this chart, disagrees with you, but while looking at these TVs, displaying 4K, at 10 feet, the image, to my eyes is waaaaay better than anything I have seen in 1080p. Maybe it is the fact that the TV is newer, or that the 4k set has other features that make the image better. But, I suspect that even at 10 ft, on the SAME set, that 4k will be notably better looking than 1080. Wish I could do this test, but I believe you have done exactly this...1080 vs 4k, on SAME set, at 10 feet, and image is notably better in 4k?

Phil

[NYT]

The chart above seems about right to me. These sets are bumping up against the human eyeball's bandwidth at this point.

I think two things are "worth it" right now:

1) Get an HDR set ("high dynamic range"), if you plan to play HDR content. It arguably makes a bigger difference than the shift from 1080 to 4K.

2) Get glasses if you don't have them - I corrected my 20/30 vision to 20/20 and boy, does my 1080p TV look sharp.

interesting image but it doesnt take into account the viewers eyesight.

if that image were to be correct, the viewer would need pretty bad vision, way worse than 20/20. i have 20/20 and the image quality between 1080p and 4k from 10 feet is night and day.

that said, i still would go with the 1080p. the price point just doesnt make sense to upgrade at this point.