So who has (or is getting) a 4K TV?

[Rezillo]

On my 2.5Mbps connection, HD or 4K Netflix is but a distant dream. We struggle with SD iplayer if anyone else uses the net.

Plus we are the lucky ones locally - a mile closer to the exchange than most of our village, where 0.5Mbps is the norm. As for mobile, Vodafone 2g, 3 3g outside only, EE 4g one bar standing in the far corner of our garden while holding the phone as high as we can.

 

[mustang1]

Hmmm, I understood it that screens on CRT had to be curved to give an equal distance from the ray and a flat screen would be distorted

.

Yup. My point. Now they're going the other way round. Well, they were, but I'm not sure that concave trend caught on.

 

[captain nemo1701]

UHD looks staggeringly good for things like nature documentaries, but there's very little content at present, so you'd be better off with a normal HDT at 1080p at present.

 

[mustang1]

[QUOTE 4127222, member: 259"]I've seen House of Cards and Better Call Saul on a mate's very expensive 4K TV, which would be way beyond what I would be prepared to pay. It looked utterly fantastic though, and there will be more 4K stuff available on the cable this year here.

But I'm more worried about the normal stuff we watch all the time looking crappy on one, especially at the medium to lower budget end, which is what we would be paying.[/QUOTE]

I predict the standard quality definition will be reduced even further to make higher def stuff look even better.

 

[Markymark]

Yup. My point. Now they're going the other way round. Well, they were, but I'm not sure that concave trend caught on.

Yes but it was not by choice and certainly not so it was seen throughout the room easier. Back then 'the flatter the better' was the mantra.

 

[Mile195]

4k is fine if you have a 4k source to watch, but bear in mind that for that additional resolution, something has to be sacrificed somewhere else so the pictures will be more highly compressed.

If all you watch is freeview for example then think carefully before spending your money on it. Most channels are still broadcasting only in SD right now. And quite honestly, even if they all converted to 4k tomorrow, the compression would be terrible - it would have to be in order to get so much data down whichever route you receive it. You might have 2160 lines of resolution, but it means nothing if the footage has been compressed so badly it looks like it's come off youtube 10 years ago.

I work in telly. The industry has just spent millions and millions of pounds upgrading to HD in recent years. 4k is a gimmick at the moment aimed at consumers with nothing better to spend their money on. The industry won't be spending millions and millions more to get rid of what they've just bought and upgrade again. Sky may be doing a UHD channel (just one, I believe), but don't expect that to increase anytime soon, just the same as there's only very limited 3d content on sky and no major push in recent times to increase it. 4k needs 4 times the data at the same compression as standard HD pictures, and that is 4 times the data of SD pictures. a 4k channel would therefore basically take the bandwidth of 16 SD channels... That's why you won't see it on freeview anytime soon...

 

[mustang1]

Yes but it was not by choice and certainly not so it was seen throughout the room easier. Back then 'the flatter the better' was the mantra.

Yeah Sony Trinitron!

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Mort, your regular tv stuff will look better. Fact. Ours is a Panasonic, as was the last one.

 

[Mile195]

Mort, your regular tv stuff will look better. Fact. Ours is a Panasonic, as was the last one.

The quality of the display can give that illusion, but you cannot accurately construct data that was never recorded in the first place. If something was shot in standard definition (576 usable lines), and up-res'd to 1080, your set simply creates data for the lines that it doesn't have, but that can only be based on the lines above and below it - it can never be a truly accurate representation.

Pictures will look better if the source is better. So if you watch channels that incorporate less compression, or you watch SD programmes off a DVD, instead of via a crummy internet connection that will improve the perceived quality far more, than buying a UHD set that you have no UHD source for.

However, you are right in the fact that displays vary in their spec. A display with a higher contrast ratio or better colour gamut (displayable range of colours) for example will seem to present pictures better. But you can achieve that by buying a higher-end HD TV, rather than splashing out on a mediocre UHD TV for the same money.

It's also worth bearing in mind that most TVs have different preset picture settings which also give the illusion of better picture quality. However, the incoming pictures are the same. Its just your TV may digitally process them to bring out certain colours more.

 

[jonny jeez]

As said above, there is a lot of talk that 4k will be superseded quickly. Weve just got a Samsung HD and the quality is fantastic.

But...be honest. Would you still watch a non hd film or programme on it and does the HD, ability really make something much better to watch.
I do get how amazing some shows are in high def, surround sound (I'm thinking of some of the awesome Attenborough content here specifically) but in truth, I would still enjoy those shows on my standard screen.

Standard screens are so good these days.

I just think the race to gain better and better definition is pointless...what difference does it really make, surely the content is what matters, not now shiny it is.

 

[Jduffy]

Wouldn't bother with the top of the range ones, go for a deal and get a standard 4k!

 

[Mile195]

But...be honest. Would you still watch a non hd film or programme on it and does the HD, ability really make something much better to watch.
I do get how amazing some shows are in high def, surround sound (I'm thinking of some of the awesome Attenborough content here specifically) but in truth, I would still enjoy those shows on my standard screen.

Standard screens are so good these days.

I just think the race to gain better and better definition is pointless...what difference does it really make, surely the content is what matters, not now shiny it is.

Exactly. Your eye can only perceive so much detail on a screen that still fits in a living room. However your average man-on-the-street is wowwed by numbers. With digital cameras there were massive jumps in resolution (ie the number of "megapixels) very quickly. However, manufacturers were by and large still putting crap lenses on the front, so it was wasted. your eye can only perceive the resolution of approximately a 4mp camera when blown up to A4 size. Any higher and it's useless, unless you want to zoom in on a small portion... Or you particularly want to view the pictures projected on to something bus-sized!

4k and beyond will be fantastic in the cinema. For anything that sits in the corner of an average living room HD 1080 pictures will be sufficient, but that's not really what the market wants to hear. Manufacturers are running out of truly ground-breaking things they can stick on consumer appliances at the moment. The only way they can keep selling them is to make them sound like they're better than what Joe Bloggs already has. Or make them break sooner... although they've been doing that for years!

 

[fossyant]

Its the same with PC monitors. Even 27" screens in 1920/1080 are cheap, but jump to Ultra HD and they re 2-3 times that. I can't tell much difference.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

You can say what you like but I've run both of mine together and the picture on the new one is very different from the old one. I could have saved a couple of quid and got a cheaper one but if it was all about price I wouldn't have used a well-established independent shop that only sells audio and visual, I'd have gone to one of those big cheap efforts where they sell TVs next to washing machines and know feck all about any of it. So there.

 

[Drago]

I can say what I like. I've run mine in the same room, and from the same non UHD source can notice bugger all difference, aside from my Willy doubtless being suddenly bigger due to having the latest thing.