Anybody Out There Own an Ultra High Def TV?
- Thread starter Random UK Fan
- Start date
yes, but the only amount of great 4K content is on netflix and amazon
it wont make your cable or satellite look any better, but the price difference is negligible now, you might as well. And the stuff you can watch is really amazing looking.
it wont make your cable or satellite look any better, but the price difference is negligible now, you might as well. And the stuff you can watch is really amazing looking.
Yes I have one. Mine upscales content up to 4k. Some movies look very fake that didn't used to look that had.
Also forgot to mention if it is smaller than a 50" I def wouldn't get one. Shows up on bigger tvs. Mine is a 65" and I sit around 10' from it.
On regular cable you won't be able to tell a difference in a 4K tv and a 1080 tv. Sports games etc are broadcasted in 720 or 1080.
Unless you're watching 4K programming (not cable/satellite, it's not going to make regular tv look better.
I have a 4K Vizio and a 1080 vizio I couldn't tell you the difference if I had them both on the championship tonight. But it's not broadcasted in 4K
Unless you're watching 4K programming (not cable/satellite, it's not going to make regular tv look better.
I have a 4K Vizio and a 1080 vizio I couldn't tell you the difference if I had them both on the championship tonight. But it's not broadcasted in 4K
I have a Samsung 4k UHD and a Samsung HD and the 4k is better picture for cable but not by a lot. Bluray looks way better but Netflix 4k content is compressed so not much better then their HD content. I haven't played a 4k disk yet but I know it will be amazing when a get a 4k player.
Not many channels broadcast in 4K if you have cable/satellite. I would wait unless you can get a deal on a smaller TV. I've noticed slightly better picture streaming on sporting events when I watched the Olympics last year on a ROKU. I have 1080 big screen TV but the picture looks sharper on my smaller TVs. Think it has something with the pixels stretched out, not exactly sure.
Last edited:
That has more to do with the type of TV (OLED, LED, LCD, etc.) than it does it being 4K. Though it's not true 4K if it's not also HDR.
You'll also want to get one with at least a 120 refresh rate, preferably even 240. It won't be noticeable on a lot of TV shows, but it is on sports and other programs/movies with a lot of fast moving objects.
I've got a 55" Sony uhd and if I'm honest, at this point it's kind of a waste. YouTube has some 4k stuff but it's mostly nature nonsense, with a scene here and there from like Avengers movies. Netflix has a little 4k stuff. I watched Luke Cage and it was awesome. But nothing worth buying a tv for.
If you get a 4k bluray player and bluray maybe, but those are few and far between right now. Just not enough content.
If you get a 4k bluray player and bluray maybe, but those are few and far between right now. Just not enough content.
This is true. I didn't care that my TV was 4K when I got it. It was on sale as a Black Friday deal and it was too good to pass up. There were non-4Ks with comparable features in the key things I wanted and they were a little cheaper but only by like $50 or less, so I just went with the 4K one since I figured that would be the best one to have going forward. I haven't watched a single thing in 4K yet on it.
Huge difference...I was blown away by some older shows and movies in 4k. Alas, I cut the cord in Jan and it's hard to come by 4k on KODI
TVs right now are about 10 or 15 years ahead of broadcasting, meaning 95% of things are broadcast in 720p, which is what a top of the line TV would've had about 10 or 15 years ago. Don't really see the point in shelling out a lot of money of a fancy top of the line tv at this point - however the 4K TVs are becoming the standard and aren't even really much more expensive then other. I see the LG OLED TVs are the new benchmark, so I'll probably wait 5 years or so and get one of those once their cheap and it'll still be overkill and not much different than my current 1080P TV.
I got a 65" LG OLED in November when they were on sale briefly (Best Buy $2799). I had been watching a 58" Samsung plasma so I wanted the great blacks that only a plasma can provide. I have loved the OLED; even better blacks. Yeah, not much content out there yet, but I hope I'm somewhat future-proof with this TV. The upscaling makes everything look great. I have Directv.
I called DTV and asked about their 4k receivers. I have had DTV with Sunday Ticket 20+ years. They wanted me to pay $400 for each 4k receiver ( have a4k in my man cave ). They only have 3 4k channels and are generic sports and wildlife programming. Told em no thanks.
I would suggest going the OLED route currently (have a 55inch LG OLED). The colors are the best ever tested according to CNET and other technology review sites. In my opinion, there's not enough 4k content currently to choose that option over OLED. When the content catches up and 4K with HDR is perfected that will be the way to go. Just not there yet. If you want to really future proof and get the best of both worlds then spend the cash and buy a 4K OLED from LG.
I've got a 65" Vizio M-Series. True 4K, especially with HDR is ridiculously better looking than normal HD. But, there just isn't much content out there to take advantage of it as many have already mentioned. And there are two formats of HDR, Dolby Vision and HDR10 and most TV's only support one or the other. 4K bluray is brand new and not many movies are out on it and players cost minimum $250. No cable or satellite TV is going to look any better. I think DirectTV has 1 or 2 channels but it's documentaries and special events. All of Netflix's original shows and movies are in 4K and HDR and look great, along with some other stuff. Amazon Prime Video has some. Youtube has tons of content, but just random stuff, not TV or movies. VUDU you can rent UHD movies for $8.
Bottom line, I wouldn't say there is enough content to justify paying extra for a 4K/UHD tv. But if you're buying a new tv anyway, and a good 4K tv isn't much more, they generally have much better tech in their panels and LED's. Things like local dimming and more powerful processors. Might as well future proof yourself a little.
Bottom line, I wouldn't say there is enough content to justify paying extra for a 4K/UHD tv. But if you're buying a new tv anyway, and a good 4K tv isn't much more, they generally have much better tech in their panels and LED's. Things like local dimming and more powerful processors. Might as well future proof yourself a little.
True 4K is the the resolution or number of pixels on the screen 3,840 pixels x 2,160 pixels. HDR is the wider gamut of color and brightness. Basically, an HDR tv can be both brighter and darker at the same time and more shades in between, as well as more shades of Green, Red, and Blue.
Edit: Not discounting your post just expanding on it.
That's right. The untra part of untra HD refers to color depth. The demos I have seen in the store between HD and UHD show a striking difference. Of course there is UHD than there is HD on cable or satellite.
The 2017 Samsung Qdot UHD tv looks really good and is probably the best LED tv right now, but I think the best will still be the 2017 UHD LG OLED models. As CNET said, the best picture from 2016 was cheapest LG OLED. the difference between the cheapest LG OLED and the most expensive LG OLED is in screen size, styling and other bells and whistles, not picture quality. By the end of the year I might go for the cheapest 55 inch LG OLED ( B series) if I can convince the wife that my old eyes would benefit from it (this will be harder than getting UK fans to donate blood to Higgins).
Incorrect, ultra HD is just another way to refer to 4K. 4K can have the same color depth as 1080p.
I bought the lg 55 inch model 55uh7650 model from Sams a month ago for about $700. A few things I have watched have looked really good but overall not highly impressed. Because price was low I bought it. If I had paid over 1,000 would not have been happy. Thought about taking it back but reviews I read of other tvs had bad reviews on picture too so kept it. Hoping when 4K comes along I will get the benefit of a great picture but who knows.
I have a Samsung 65" curved 4K SUHD TV and I love it. Got it for under 2k.
I think it makes a difference, especially if you like to watch Blu-Ray or stream anything on Netflix/Hulu. For cable programming, the thing you notice most are the colors being more vibrant.
I think it makes a difference, especially if you like to watch Blu-Ray or stream anything on Netflix/Hulu. For cable programming, the thing you notice most are the colors being more vibrant.
Notice how they somehow keep finding ways to improve picture quality? Are we gonna be able to count someone's pores at some point?
Background: I own a 65 inch Samsung 4k UHD with HDR also a Samsung 4k player and the 4k upgrade on netflix. Also a 60 1080 3d vizio in another room and a 40 inch 1080 samsung in the bedroom.
Just my 2 cents here...
Yes there is a difference but you have to know what you're doing. Going to Wal Mart and simply buying a "4k" for the sake of 4k may be disappointing. Not trying to be snobbish about it but this ish is starting to get complicated and you should really do your research before investing in one. My friend did this with a 4k non HDR Vizio, and to be honest it's not impressive whatsoever. Id take a good 1080 samsung all day over it. So if you're going cheap, stick with 1080 but get a great 1080.
But for the most part If just watching cable...the 4k will show an improvement over a 1080 tv. Yes, the broadcast will likely be in 720 but with a 4k, you're getting a better tv, period. It will upscale better, refresh rates are better ,color, etc. Both my 1080 vizio and Samsung look great by themselves but like garbage side by side with my Samsung 4k (I've tried this).
Most will inherently upscale blu rays as well and if you have a HDR tv paired with an HDR 4k player, you'll be blown away. HdR movies like Mad Max, Revenant, and the Martian are unbelievable.
Netflix 4k is amazing as well as long as you have the 4k netflix upgrade and are getting at least 25 mbps down or better on your home network. Several shows on there look absolutely stunning tbh.
So yes, theres a better picture out there to be had but do your homework and of course be willing to pay for it.
Additionally: Do not...I repeat Do Not purchase a non HDR tv if later planning or even thinking about going with 4k HDR movies.
Just my 2 cents here...
Yes there is a difference but you have to know what you're doing. Going to Wal Mart and simply buying a "4k" for the sake of 4k may be disappointing. Not trying to be snobbish about it but this ish is starting to get complicated and you should really do your research before investing in one. My friend did this with a 4k non HDR Vizio, and to be honest it's not impressive whatsoever. Id take a good 1080 samsung all day over it. So if you're going cheap, stick with 1080 but get a great 1080.
But for the most part If just watching cable...the 4k will show an improvement over a 1080 tv. Yes, the broadcast will likely be in 720 but with a 4k, you're getting a better tv, period. It will upscale better, refresh rates are better ,color, etc. Both my 1080 vizio and Samsung look great by themselves but like garbage side by side with my Samsung 4k (I've tried this).
Most will inherently upscale blu rays as well and if you have a HDR tv paired with an HDR 4k player, you'll be blown away. HdR movies like Mad Max, Revenant, and the Martian are unbelievable.
Netflix 4k is amazing as well as long as you have the 4k netflix upgrade and are getting at least 25 mbps down or better on your home network. Several shows on there look absolutely stunning tbh.
So yes, theres a better picture out there to be had but do your homework and of course be willing to pay for it.
Additionally: Do not...I repeat Do Not purchase a non HDR tv if later planning or even thinking about going with 4k HDR movies.
Last edited:
Don't treat us like we are stupid... just tell the truth. You threw something through the TV during the UNC game.