4K Worth It?

[Phil3]

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

[cowtown]

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.

[rkt88edmo]

After TV shopping last fall, I thought almost everything 55" and up didn't look good to my eye unless they were expen$ive.

So I went small and got a 4k. I can see the difference on my set watching netflix 4k content from other stuff on friends' sets.

You have top know what is important to you in viewing.

When do you plan to buy your next TV after this one? If it is more than 5 years I would lean towards getting 4k if it were me.

[castgold]

I've had a 55" 4k 120 hz curved Samsung for a little over a year now. I don't really think our cable HD signal exhibits a discernible benefit. However, when I run my computer with a high end graphics card and a short HDMI 2.0 cable, I feel the images and animation do exhibit the difference. If you shop for a TV, I'd suggest considering the refresh rate of the picture with the same weight as the resolution. The smooth motion probably makes more of a difference than UHD vs HD right now.

[Phil3]

When I was looking at a 65" Samsung and Sony last night at Video Only store, they of course were showing on screen dedicated 4k content to show off the technology. Now according to charts, like the one someone posted above, I should not be able to see the difference between that and 1080p content at my viewing distance of 10-1/2 feet. I was not able to do a side by side comparison, but to my eye, the 4K was easily superior at that distance based on what I recall our existing 61" set could do at 1080p. Maybe that old set, even at 1080p is just no so good, and maybe a new 1080p set would do as well. I don't know, guess I best try to find out.

Phil

[rkt88edmo]

I've had a 55" 4k 120 hz curved Samsung for a little over a year now. I don't really think our cable HD signal exhibits a discernible benefit. However, when I run my computer with a high end graphics card and a short HDMI 2.0 cable, I feel the images and animation do exhibit the difference. If you shop for a TV, I'd suggest considering the refresh rate of the picture with the same weight as the resolution. The smooth motion probably makes more of a difference than UHD vs HD right now.

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.

[keenkeen]

When I was looking at a 65" Samsung and Sony last night at Video Only store, they of course were showing on screen dedicated 4k content to show off the technology. Now according to charts, like the one someone posted above, I should not be able to see the difference between that and 1080p content at my viewing distance of 10-1/2 feet. I was not able to do a side by side comparison, but to my eye, the 4K was easily superior at that distance based on what I recall our existing 61" set could do at 1080p. Maybe that old set, even at 1080p is just no so good, and maybe a new 1080p set would do as well. I don't know, guess I best try to find out.

Phil

They set up the demo to upsell to 4K...

[joefrank64k]

[Phil3]

How far away are you from the screen? - Phil

[castgold]

How far away are you from the screen? - Phil

12'

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.