Very OT: Thoughts on 4K/Favorite Electronic Brands
So, after months of compromising with the MGoFiance, I finally have my football watching set-up. 55 inches of 4K, curved, Samsung television now graces my wall, and I LOVE IT. (#humblebrag)
Also, because I'm an S7 kinda guy, my phone can act as a remote, an extra speaker, and mirror my activities on my phone to the TV. Super cool.
What I failed to research, however, is the general lack of 4K content right now. Or my phone possibly blowing up in my face. Still, I'm a Samsung fanboy.
So, do you think 4K is a gimmick like 3D was? What brands of electronics do you like best?
In the spirit of the long lost Discuss Man,
DISCUSS.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:13 PM ^
Spending $800 on a TV, and then seeing a bigger one available 6 months later for way less money makes me insane.
Still don't have a blu-ray player either. Although now that they're $50 (and probably soon to be replaced) it's probably time to buy one.
Also, I still have that dead plasma from 09 in my garage. The picture on it was beautiful and I'll get it fixed eventually for use in the bedroom.
February 27th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^
I'm being dead serious. The dry cleaner/tailor on Carpenter and Ellsworth in Pittsfield Twp repairs TV's.
February 27th, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^
4K is not that much of an improvement, especially for TVs below 60". However, HDR will be the real improvement. I'd take a true HDR 1080P image over 4K. The benefit of 4K is really for projector screens. I have a 4K HDR Samsung TV in our living room and we have a 4K E-Shift HDR projector in our theater. The size of the projector screen really benefits from the Faux-K resolution on my projector. I also have a Oppo UHD player and several 4K HDR Blurays, which look fantastic. Additionally, Netflix and Amazon both have 4K HDR streaming content. Check out Marco Polo in 4K HDR on Netflix.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:13 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 3:40 PM ^
February 28th, 2017 at 12:00 AM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 3:41 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 1:21 PM ^
I am not saying you should not get a new TV right now. I was going to buy one very recently. But the reason should be because of HDR, not 4K. 4K is a gimmick because if you are buying the TV to watch TV programs (which what most of us do), 4K content is not coming any time soon (decades, probably). Broadcasters are still paying off the cost of moving to 720P/1080i, they are not about to spend that kind of money again.
The real reason to get a new TV right now is because of HDR support. This means blacker blacks and brighter whites. This is what REALLY makes the images pop on your screen.
If you focus on 4K instead of HDR, you may get a TV that is 4K, but not HDR, and you will be disappointed in the future. Make sure you get HDR enabled set, 4k is just a bonus.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 4:22 PM ^
I'm sure it is, but you have to enable it in the advanced picture settings. It won't let you enable it unless the source is HDR, so it won't work when you are viewing Directv.
February 27th, 2017 at 2:31 PM ^
Broadcasters may or may not adopt 4k soon, but internet streaming services already are in the process. As others have mentioned, Amazon Prime and Netflix have a lot of 4K content. I watch new movies in 4k by renting them off Vudu and casting them to my TV - I just watched Arrival and it looked absolutely amazing. If you just want to enjoy nice 4k visuals, The Grand Tour on Amazon prime is stunning. I have standard Comcast internet (25 Mbps I believe?) and I am able to watch 4k content with no buffering delays or hiccups.
Frankly, I'm not sure why Gameboy has such a negative outlook on his. It is almost like he is out here hating. :) 4k content started out as a trickle, but it has been steadily increasing since then. If you have an internet connection, the desire to search out 4k content, and some technical savvy (it can be tough to get the content to stream, for example Amazon Prime shows won't stream through Google Cast because of a disagreement between the two companies), you can find plenty of 4k content.
FWIW, I agree with Gameboy about HDR, but medium quality and up 4k TVs will all have one or both HDR formats (HDR10 or Dolby Vision).
When TV shopping, I find the site www.rtings.com to be invaluable. They have the best reviews and comparisons that I have seen on the net, and will also make recommendations based on desired size & budget.
February 27th, 2017 at 4:57 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^
They also broadcasted select sporting events in 3D a few years ago. Does not change the fact that they were gimmicks.
February 27th, 2017 at 6:04 PM ^
My problem with 4K is this.
1. Broadcasters are not going to start broadcasting in 4K anytime soon. They have to buy all new cameras. Not too hard with movie-based projects since they needed to move from film based cameras anyway, but broadcasters would have to replace cameras/transmitters that they bought within the last decade.
2. This makes streaming companies very important. Except you do not get very good ROI in quality for the bandwidth required. Most are going to compress the hell out of the 4k video to fit it into the existing infrastructure. It is going to look like crap just like how broadcast content looks like crap on DirecTV, cable, and even OTA (when they split channels).
3. We would have better quality streaming video if they used the same bandwidth for 4K video to stream 1080P at higher quality bit-rate. But that is never going to happen now that 4K is just another checkbox to check.
4K is going to hurt the overall quality of stream feeds. We are exchanging quality for pixel count.
February 27th, 2017 at 11:06 PM ^
Is rtings as good as CNET for electronics reviews?
February 27th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^
As you noted HDR support is a smart move. However, 4K is not a gimmick and widespread broadcasting is definitely not decades away. In terms of consumer adoption 4k is being adopted at a faster rate than HDTV was (you can google it). On the broadcast side the push is being led by the OTT services moreso than linear TV. Though linear is moving to it as well. For example, Netflix requires all of it's own commissions to be shot in 4k -- cinema 4k, not UHD. They are also shooting many shows (like House of Cards) in 6k and 8k to "future proof" their content. On the production side, even 2.5-3 years ago it was difficult to source the proper gear at a typical HD price, and have a proper post production workflow for 4k series. Now it's fairly common and all the post houses can handle a 4k workflow. Even a year ago when I shot a 4k project, getting a 4k field monitor was a challenge. That's changed now. I saw the same thing when we went from SD to HD but this transition has been faster. Avid didn't even support native 4k processing until early 2015. Now iMovie even supports 4k.
It's happening. It's not a gimmick. OP - smart move to get a 4k TV.
February 27th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 5:08 PM ^
The "consumer adoption" metric is deceptive. When HD came out, the HDTVs that were available were all significantly more expensive than the SDTVs that were widely available at the time. HDTVs were projection screens, fancy expensive new plasma screens, the occasional ultra-bulky CRT (remember, it came out in the CRT era). So there was not only an upgrade in resolution, but in picture technology. It was a luxury upgrade.
In contrast, the speed with which tv manufacturers have adopted 4k resolutions for their regularly-priced products is astonishing. Partly because 4k resolution can adopt all of the technology (flat screens, LCD/OLED displays, etc) that is already in use. The price scale is completely different, a situation where a 50" tv (a mindblowing luxury beyond my wildest dreams 15 years ago) is a run-of-the-mill, affordable family product.
And the tvs that are 50" and up are all basically getting phased into 4k right now, to the point that searching for lower resolutions is challenging and pointless.
Content isn't nearly as accessible. For everything you've said about content getting produced in 4k, the net benefit to it is a lot lower than HD vs SD, and the challenge to push it to tvs is pretty high. What works in its favor (and allows it to take time to ramp up to speed) is this rapid and relatively affordable adoption process that guarantees that there will be a good audience for it.
February 27th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
Maybe I am wrong, but where can you find HDR content that doesn't also benefit from a 4k display? I understand that they are two seperate things, but from a marketing standpoint, they almost always are tied together. Xbox One S.... 4K with HDR. Amazone Prime, it seems to get HDR content, the shows are also in 4k Ultra HD. You need a 4k Blu Ray play to get HDR. In other words, 4k and HDR are almost always tied together.
So while you say 4k is a gimmck because of content, doesn't that also make HDR a gimmick if we go by your definition?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that HDR delivers a better visual performance benefit than simply upgrading from 1080p to 4k (when sitting at a normal viewing distance). In reality however, they both combine to create the experience.
The fact of the matter is, if you are going to get a new TV, get a TV that is both 4K and has HDR. The content for both is the same.
February 27th, 2017 at 5:53 PM ^
The problem is that 4k has HEAVY toll on bandwidth. And to fit all that content into the tiny pipe, they will compress the hell out of the video. You will end up with images that are higher in pixel count, but lower in quality.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:01 PM ^
I'm still rocking my old school tube TV. Its 230 pounds. I have the cash for a new TV, but not the will to move old dependable.
February 27th, 2017 at 2:58 PM ^
on the porch with a sign that said "free if you can haul it away."
It was gone the next morning so . . . problem solved. BTW it took 3 people to get it on the porch from the basement.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:09 PM ^
Content will be coming faster and faster. Once you go to 4K HDR, watching regular HD is almost like going back to SD from 1080 HD. I got rid of cable and satellite and use the Playstation Vue for all of that. It has all been worth the change. I will say that I don't think that 4K DVD's will become a success. More and more people are moving to digital files instead of hard copies. That's why Sony chose not to put a 4K player in it's new Pro.
February 27th, 2017 at 3:46 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 1:26 PM ^
From Costco when the price dropped for the super bowl week advert. Wished I would've gone ahead and bought the Sony though.. Their 930d is nice. The good thing with Costco is their return policy. I went back and forth over worrying about HD10 vs Dolbys Vision and not having both!!! Anyways, I think I might return it and wait till later in the year.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^
My thoughts...
4K
As much a gimmick as 720->1080p was. That is to say, a very valid technology upgrade that will have a slow adoption curve by all pieces of the market, which limits it's value early-on.
Curved
Seems dumb to me (personal preference). I like wide viewing angles and curved TVs only seem perfect when you're exactly in the center and at a certain distance.
Brands
I've seen great Dynex TVs and terrible Sony TVs. I think it's case-by-case these days.
February 27th, 2017 at 1:31 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 1:42 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 2:00 PM ^
My favorite brand, and am using all four HDMI ports, with Amazon firestick/ Amazon Prime being my go-to streaming service.
February 27th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^
55"? Cumong, man. Step your game up.
February 27th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 4:00 PM ^
That is certainly an upgrade; however, you should shoot for an 80" like I have. Mine is not 4K, though. My next television will certainly be either 4K or OLED.
February 27th, 2017 at 2:36 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 3:27 PM ^
February 27th, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^
Of course its a gimmick. I have RCN Cable (which is generally pretty good) and they don't even have 1080P signals.
I think I can stream some Netflix shows in 1080P, but that's about it. No live TV, no sports... If I were buying a new TV, I'd get a 4K one in case though.
Cable companies should really embrace 4K, because of the incredible bandwidth to pirate 4K streams and the PIA of downloading pirated 4K material. Also, services like Kodi don't do 4K.
February 27th, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^
With a premium Netflix account (I think like 12 per month), tons of 4k content (native), including most if not all original Netflix content. Amazon prime also streams some native 4k.
February 28th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
http://www.avsforum.com/tv-broadcasters-say-1080p-hdr-matters-4k/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AVSForum.com_weekly&utm_source=AVSForum.com20170228 heck most broadcat in 720p/1080i not even 1080p yet. In an article by The Hollywood Reporter that’s based on comments made by a panel of broadcasters at Wednesday’s HPA (Hollywood Professional Association) Tech Retreat in Palm Springs, the message from broadcasters is that 1080p HDR is coming to a broadcast TV when ATSC 3.0—the next generation of broadcast standards—is implemented.
According to the piece by Carolina Giardina, Fox Networks is optimistic about the prospects of HDR, and Richard Friedel, the executive VP and general manager of engineering & operations at Fox Networks, said, “When we launch ATSC 3.0, you’ll see HDR.”
Fox was joined by the likes of PBS, Cox Media Group, and Sinclair Broadcast Group in feeling optimistic about HDR. Apparently, broadcasters can accommodate up to 1080p HDR without having to overhaul their equipment infrastructure—unlike a move to 4K resolution.
CBS wasn’t quite as enthusiastic as the other networks when it came to promising that HDR broadcasts are on the way. The VP of engineering and advanced technology at CBS said that the network was studying and testing HDR but demurred on committing to its implementation.
Based on typical TV screen sizes and viewing distances, in many instances it is true that 1080p HDR will have a bigger impact than a move to 4K SDR. Many professional digital cameras already capture enough dynamic range to produce a HDR image, and if it’s really true that the broadcast infrastructure is there to support it, there would appear to be little barrier to making HDR mainstream.
ATSC 3.0, which was created by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (the folks who brought you ATSC 1.0 and made HDTV happen), has yet to be implemented. So, all this talk is currently hypothetical. But it certainly points to a near future where HDR potentially overtakes 4K resolution as the primary picture-quality selling point for new TVs