Is 4k worth it for $200-$250 more than a 1080P or will it be obsolete? I just dont see this catching on since bandwidth is at a premium but I could be wrong. Thanks much. BP
Is 4k worth it. The difference is about $200
- Thread starter robertjp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 16K
As I mentioned in the other thread, 4K TVs will upscale any source to near 4K. I'd go for it...
The problem is the refresh rate. The affordable 4ks are 60mz or 120 motion for Samsung. If you want 120 mz or 240 motion rate, you have to pay 500 more. The salesmen told me if I was going to get (afford) a 60 mz then I should go with a 1080p cause it will handle the less pixels better than a 4k. Makes sense. ??
It all depends on the 4k up-converting feature and how it looks with an hd satellite picture. I had an up-converting hd tv early in the last decade and it made my sd satellite picture look like crap. I can only hope that the 4k tv does a better job of up-scaling without exposing all the flaws in the existing hd satellite picture.
1080 is bloody awesome! HD kicks butt. Not a single person has looked at a 1080 display and said... man... is that dated or what?! Can you imagine we used to watch television with such poor resolution?
Personally, I'd snag a Smart Tv as part of the television. That will give you something you can appreciate immediately and with the $200 you save, you can buy hats or videos or something else that you can appreciate now, because 4k content is still going to be uncommon for a bit.
Read articles from places like Cnet and other online resources. You may regret a 4K tv that is only $200 more than a 1080 one for watching cable/satellite or even OTA. As one example, Vizio has a very affordable 4K tv that gets nice ratings with 4K material, BUT not so good for interlaced programming such as 1080I which is the standard today.
If the TV has 4k Netflix and Amazon built in then go for it. ALSO make sure the TV has HDMI 2.0a and is HDCP 2.2 compliant. (NOT MANY TVs have this yet)
If it doesn't, you won't be able to EVER connect a UHD Blu-Ray player into it.
ALSO, the 60 mz thing is THAT important unless you want all the soap opera effect you can get. Content comes in a max 60 frames. The TV can show more frames, but it's either going to make up a frame based of the prior and next frames data or, just display the same frame 2 or 4 times. 120hz does have the benefit of being able to output native 1080p24 (24 FPS, show each frame 5 times, you end up at 120) Lesser Hz TVs need to do some processing to make up for this, and the outcome may vary depending on the quality of the image processor.
Modern 60Hz TVs rarely suffer the LCD issues that caused motion blur so the extra refresh rate just isn't important.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp
Give us the TV models we can better advise you!
(Is this what this forum is for?)
If it doesn't, you won't be able to EVER connect a UHD Blu-Ray player into it.
ALSO, the 60 mz thing is THAT important unless you want all the soap opera effect you can get. Content comes in a max 60 frames. The TV can show more frames, but it's either going to make up a frame based of the prior and next frames data or, just display the same frame 2 or 4 times. 120hz does have the benefit of being able to output native 1080p24 (24 FPS, show each frame 5 times, you end up at 120) Lesser Hz TVs need to do some processing to make up for this, and the outcome may vary depending on the quality of the image processor.
Modern 60Hz TVs rarely suffer the LCD issues that caused motion blur so the extra refresh rate just isn't important.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp
Give us the TV models we can better advise you!
(Is this what this forum is for?)
What about this TV ? www.walmart.com/ip/Hisense-50H7GB1-50-4K-Ultra-HD-2160p-120Hz-LED-Smart-HDTV-4K-x-2K/46009858?action=product_interest&action_type=title&item_id=46009858&placement_id=irs-302-m3&strategy=PWVUB&visitor_id&category=&client_guid=51e80457-57b7-4684-b14b-caac9f00b845&customer_id_enc&config_id=302&parent_item_id=44465836&parent_anchor_item_id=44465836&guid=c7de2765-c072-41c6-9e11-3140d6765c12&bucket_id=irsbucketdefault&beacon_version=1.0.1&findingMethod=p13n
Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk
Lets see... being sold by Walmart. NO! 4K isn't at the point of being cheap reliably.
I probably not buy it as a primary set because of the brand, not because it is sold by Wal Mart.
That said, I have not seen one in person.
That said, I have not seen one in person.
Analog C-Band, when did right, offered an excellent picture. It was just nearly as good as HD to me.
Im considering the Samsung JS7000 SUHD in 50" ($799) or the Samsung J6300 in 55" or 50" ($699/ $629) (although I hear the 50 has inferior outsourced panels). All are 60 hz 120 motion rate sets .
As discussed already, you may very well be disappointed with the cheaper 60/120s. If you can't step up to a higher tier, 120/240, I would not step up at all. Wait another year.
Ask yourself how long you're going to own the TV. If you buy 1080 now you will miss out on future TV standards, not to mention current streaming content and improved 1080 watching with upconversion. This year Samsung is the safest bet, but spend the money on one with the full One Connect box, not the Mini. One Connect boxes future proof your investment as the UHD standards are finalized. Black Friday offers are out there now.
What is the main benefit of the 120/240 for an additional 300-400? I mean if money was no object then sure.
I hear very good reviews for all those I mentioned.
I hear very good reviews for all those I mentioned.
I checked out the One Connect box in the Samsung site. Looks like a neat feature but I don't think I would use anything it provides or at least I don't now.
