re: Have you upgraded to a 4K TV yet?

Posted by BulldogXero

Member since Oct 2011

10384 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 10:50 pm to RedRifle

quote:
Is it worth doing it now or should I wait for a couple of years? I don't Think there's enough content in 1080i/1080p let alone 4K yet

This.

I would even argue that 1080p isn't even worth it unless you watch a ton of Blu Rays.

Posted by ArkLaTexTiger

Houston

Member since Nov 2009

2572 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 10:54 pm to RedRifle

Watch 720P programming on a 4K set. Good stuff. First world problem.

Posted by CCTider

Member since Dec 2014

25241 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 11:03 pm to ArkLaTexTiger

I figured the only thing that's in 4k it's porn. So yeah, it'd be worth it.

Posted by Wally Sparks

Atlanta

Member since Feb 2013

32895 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 11:05 pm to RedRifle

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

52663 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 11:05 pm to CCTider

I work with 4K content in the commercial world, but for the most part, 4K sets in medical, industrial and commercial applications are so they can put up lots of HD content in multiple windows. You can put four 1080p computers on a 4K screen using a Quad controller.

Posted by markasaurus

Baton Rouge

Member since Aug 2011

2996 posts

Posted on 8/15/15 at 11:50 pm to RedRifle

I have a ZT60 panny bruh. Ain't nothing outperforming it to this day

And most 4K only display it at 30hz. It's shite. Your picture at a still image might be crisp, but you won't be watching a slide show.

I've always cared more about black levels. Uniformity. Color accuracy. Check this out for a good read

LINK

quote:
Of course, the quoted number is often only half the story. Consider the megapixel myth of digital cameras: a 15-megapixel camera isn't necessarily going to yield a "better" picture than an 8-megapixel shooter. Nor is a 4K Ultra HD TV -- with a resolution of 3,840x2,160 pixels -- going to necessarily outshine a "standard" HDTV with 1,920x1,080 pixels, or just one-fourth of the 4K screen's resolution. Plenty of other factors, including color accuracy and contrast ratio (not to mention the quality of the video source) will affect the picture quality to a normal eye.

This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 12:02 am

2 ...

Posted by shutterspeed

MS Gulf Coast

Member since May 2007

73867 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 12:21 am to RummelTiger

quote:
I don't know, but I found myself in Best Buy the other day by the TV's and I stood there and watched one of those videos that they play (it was all in India) that are in ultra HD for like 10 minutes. It was incredible.

Wife and I did thr same thing last night. My favorite part was when the guy on the camel rides through the canyon.

Posted by GRTiger

On a roof eating alligator pie

Member since Dec 2008

71859 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 12:27 am to RummelTiger

quote:
I don't know, but I found myself in Best Buy the other day by the TV's and I stood there and watched one of those videos that they play (it was all in India) that are in ultra HD for like 10 minutes. It was incredible. Seriously was trying to rationalize the 6k+ spend...

I can't belive 6 people hated this post enough to down vote.

Posted by tLSU

Member since Oct 2007

8692 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 1:19 am to markasaurus

I remember when I was part of the panny plasma cult. There's a reason the line is dead.

Posted by markasaurus

Baton Rouge

Member since Aug 2011

2996 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:00 am to tLSU

And that reason was??? Your argument certainly won't be because LcD outperformed it. Or that a Panasonic zt60 or Sammy 8500 sucked their final year. It was because production costs and companies fanancial return. Lack of the ability to shrink in sizes also played key. Plasmas couldn't get smaller than 42" while lcd were selling to your average consumer in all shapes and sizes. People saw a 50" plasma for $2000 or a 55" lcd for the same price. It's still the case today. Your average consumer walks into best buy and wants whatever the biggest TV he can afford for the money

OLED is what I keep my eye on these days.

This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 2:07 am

Posted by tigerbutt

Deep South

Member since Jun 2006

26452 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 2:11 am to s14suspense

quote:
a gimmick just like "LED" TVs are.

Posted by TigerWise

Front Seat of an Uber

Member since Sep 2010

35132 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 6:31 am to RedRifle

If I were buying a new TV today I would get a 4K. I bought my last TV with my FEMA money so if I were buying a TV today it would be the latest and greatest out there considering how long I would use it. The Sony XBRs are fine as frick. Even though I don't need a new TV I could see myself buying one come the end of this model year.

Posted by TrueTiger

Chicken's most valuable

Member since Sep 2004

83630 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 7:31 am to RedRifle

I'm still rocking the cathode ray tube 32".

Posted by Pax Regis

Alabama

Member since Sep 2007

15402 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 7:46 am to s14suspense

It's marketing hype. TV manufacturers just trying to convince the public of the next big leap equivalent to HD when it came out. It isn't here yet. They tried 3d. It sucked. Now it's 4k but why buy it when there is no content hardly.

Bottom line: you are a fool parting with your money if you get rid of a perfectly good 1080p TV to "upgrade" to a 4k.

Posted by markasaurus

Baton Rouge

Member since Aug 2011

2996 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 8:52 am to Pax Regis

This man is correct

However. If my tv did just shite out, I would def get a 4K TV just because it would be on it by default due to the price range. There wouldn't be a single 4K program or content id be able to watch when i brought it home though.

Now can we argue which is more of a gimmick. Curved tvs or 4k?

This post was edited on 8/16/15 at 9:18 am

Posted by HoustonGumbeauxGuy

Member since Jul 2011

33759 posts

Posted on 8/16/15 at 9:19 am to RedRifle

Have had a 55" Samsung LCD for 6 years, picture is incredible.

Not in a rush to buy an LED, much less a 4k.