Is a 4K TV worth getting?

[joeyrupption]

I have a 55" LED 1080p TV and sit about 10' from it and find myself moving closer for things like gaming. I sit about 5' from it when I am playing first person shooters.

I have pretty much the same setup, 55" w/ 9'-6" to my eyeballs.

THX calls for 100" TV's for our distance. Per my experience with my cousin's 120" projector screen at 10'-12', I concur.

(My TV is the biggest I could fit on the wall. It only has a 10" buffer on each side - to an interior corner on one side and an opening on the other. I also accounted for a slightly wider TV bench below it to serve as a physical barrier to keep little kids from touching it - it is only 6" proud of the TV on the sides but is maybe 18" deep. -What I'm saying is my TV is too small and I want to put in a home theater room in the basement.)

 

[Xception]

46" Sony Bravia 1080 circa 2007 , strangely it looks better than the current Bravias with the same setup . As a technology becomes more affordable I think they do that by skimming and take away what made it perfect . I'm hoping it lasts until oled becomes more prevalent but then I wonder if it will be of the same quality as first generation oleds . Waiting for Sony to offer up a good oled , I have had good experiences buying Sony .

 

[ukalumni00]

Bought a 4k and love it. Limited programming but the stuff I watch on Netflix does look better but I cant say it is dramatically better right now. If you have the extra cash then go for it. If not, I would wait.

 

[BlueRunner11]

I always heard the rule of thumb was to go with the bigger size as opposed to the better picture when both are relatively equal in cost. As one poster said, the tv does start to shrink on you as time goes on. I got a 65 inch 4k and love it but a 70 inch 1080p would have probably been better for my current setup. First world problems I know.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Just got a 55" LG 4k TV on a post Christmas sale to upgrade the 42" 1080p vizio that the backlight went out in.

We've probably reached the point (similar to computers in the 90s) where the moment you buy a TV it is obsolete. The OLED's look great and I'm interested HDR10 vs Dolby Vision, but I can't see justifying spending $3k+ on a TV anytime soon.

 

[vhcat70]

Bought 50" 4K LG a few months ago for $480 at Costco. Didn't think anything of it since cost vs. 1080 was minimal. Watch no special 4K programs.

Now have to say that I can see 3D depth - even 1930's movies - that I'd never seen before - characters in foreground stand out from background. See it across all programming. Net, really enhances to the picture vs. 1080 for us.

 

[Monroe Claxton]

Watched the election results on a 4K. You could see wrinkles form on the faces of the hosts as Trump was getting closer to victory

 

[BlueRunner11]

We've probably reached the point (similar to computers in the 90s) where the moment you buy a TV it is obsolete.

I agree and in a way it's great and in another way it sucks. Bought a 65 inch 4k Samsung a year ago. GF gets me a 4k samsung uhd player this year for Xmas but in order to get the most out of these new 4k movies, you really need a TV with HDR which unfortunately mine does not have even though it's 4k and only a year old or so.

 

[CondorCat]

4K is a necessary, but not dramatically improved, step towards the next big change in TV sets. No one is really going to notice a dramatic difference. However, the new technology that you should be taking a look at is HDR. This is a dramatic step forward, especially when it comes to depth and color. The biggest problem with HDR is that there are competing standards: Dolby Vision and HDR-10. Like with any format war, there is no clear cut winner. The one thing to know right now is that HDR-10 can be added later on through a software update, while Dolby cannot. So, if you want to future proof yourself then Vizio and LG appear to be the two companies that are providing the TV's with the clearest path of support for both standards.

Good info. That's what I'm hearing too from reviews at consumer electronics shows, etc. The "Wow" factor is the HDR, not the improved 4K resolution.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Bought 50" 4K LG a few months ago for $480 at Costco. Didn't think anything of it since cost vs. 1080 was minimal. Watch no special 4K programs.

Now have to say that I can see 3D depth - even 1930's movies - that I'd never seen before - characters in foreground stand out from background. See it across all programming. Net, really enhances to the picture vs. 1080 for us.

Got a 50" LG 4K HDR for Christmas. Parents got it online on Black Friday for like $400. Despite no 4K content, the picture is great. Helps a lot that it has a 120Hz refresh rate. 1080P blurays looked incredible on it. Smart TV software on it is pretty hideous but it has Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Huly, Google Play, YouTube, Vudu, and Plex so I can get most of my streaming video watched directly on the TV now. Still need the Fire TV for Kodi and WatchESPN though. Would have been great if it had been an Android TV.

Will be interesting to see how it looks when I head back home from my parents. House I rent has cable TV provided but I have to pay for the cable box which the cable company reams you like $20 a month for it so I just say no. Only HD channels I get are locals that I pick up OTA. Interested to see how the SD channels look on it

 

[Crushgroove]

Just got a 55" LG 4k TV on a post Christmas sale to upgrade the 42" 1080p vizio that the backlight went out in.

We've probably reached the point (similar to computers in the 90s) where the moment you buy a TV it is obsolete. The OLED's look great and I'm interested HDR10 vs Dolby Vision, but I can't see justifying spending $3k+ on a TV anytime soon.

Just bought this TV, too. It replaced an 8-y/o LG 42" that I paid around $700 for.

the 60" LED 1080p (NON 4K) model right next to it was on sale for $360