#1
Old 12-29-2017, 09:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Posts: 2,843
Explain new TVs to me

So my 5 year old TV just went tits up on me and the repairman said it would cost too much to repair it realistically. So can someone briefly explain 4K and curved and all the other new bells and whistles in new TV tech to me? TV is the one extravagance I allow myself, my one indulgence, and I'd like to know what to look for when I go to Best Buy tomorrow.
#2
Old 12-29-2017, 09:37 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 2,485
The new big thing in TVs is high-dynamic range or HDR. It increases the colour range so the picture looks amazing (when paired with appropriate HDR-enabled content, like UHD Blu-rays and some streaming content). 4K is higher resolution than 1080p (aka FullHD) so it offers increased picture sharpness.

Pretty much everyone follows the advice on https://rtings.com/tv/reviews/best.

Some random thoughts:
-OLED is amazing because of the contrast ratio and basically infinitely fast pixel response. It probably isn't worth it yet since it's $$$, but I'm Canadian so my sense of prices is off.
-HDR is 100% worth it. It's the most legitimate improvement to TVs since HD.
-Curved TVs and 3D were both unsuccessful gimmicks and no one makes those TVs any longer.
-Full-array local dimming (FALD) is good if the number of zones is very high otherwise it's useless. 256+ is solid.
-A good Smart TV ecosystem is nice. Android-based models are probably top dog now, but webOS is also highly regarded.
-IPS sucks because the contrast ratio isn't very good (1000:1) compared to VA panels (3000:1). FALD doesn't solve this unless the number of zones is very high. Get a VA panel (if not OLED).
-True 120 Hz (rather than subpixel interpolation) is probably worth it and definitely worth it if you connect a PC to it for gaming.

Any TV worth buying will be 4K so there isn't a decision to be made there. Panel quality isn't something you can judge in-person and won't be advertised and that's where rtings comes in. Panel quality is only slightly correlated with TV price.

Last edited by Palooka; 12-29-2017 at 09:40 PM.
#3
Old 12-29-2017, 09:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 14,123
Go to Walmart, buy a TV for a hundred bucks. If the screen is too small, sit closer. Get out an old set of computer speakers, because the speakers will be shitty even on a better TV. If you buy a $4k TV, youre buying a $100 TV and $3900 worth of other functionality, most of which you'll never use. Like really, how fast does your pixel response have to be?
#4
Old 12-29-2017, 10:09 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 4,975
It is important to know

1. 4K signals are not available via antenna or cable, only streaming and the new 4K Blu-ray Discs. So, the TVs end up doubling the image from most sources.
2. My experience has been that eventually, 'Smart' TVs (and DVD players) stop getting updates and fall behind. I have had better luck with separate streaming boxes which I can update/replace independently.
__________________
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
~ Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)

Last edited by jasg; 12-29-2017 at 10:09 PM.
#5
Old 12-29-2017, 10:31 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,906
Yeah, I wouldn’t base a TV decision on smart TV features, unless there’s some specific unusual app you’re looking for. Our newer TV has good smart features, but for the older one we just picked up a Fire TV Stick for $35 Canadian.
#6
Old 12-29-2017, 10:49 PM
Just Lovely and Delicious
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 24,322
Explain new TVs to me

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Go to Walmart, buy a TV for a hundred bucks. If the screen is too small, sit closer. Get out an old set of computer speakers, because the speakers will be shitty even on a better TV. If you buy a $4k TV, youre buying a $100 TV and $3900 worth of other functionality, most of which you'll never use. Like really, how fast does your pixel response have to be?


4K TVs are not $4000 TVs. It’s a technical term. A super crazy expensive tv today would be about $1000 but you can get something amazing for around $500.

How much do you think a 100 Grand candy bar costs?

Last edited by ZipperJJ; 12-29-2017 at 10:50 PM.
#7
Old 12-29-2017, 10:54 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 39,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post
4K TVs are not $4000 TVs. Its a technical term. A super crazy expensive tv today would be about $1000 but you can get something amazing for around $500.

How much do you think a 100 Grand candy bar costs?
AWK-ward. . .
#8
Old 12-30-2017, 08:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: so-central region @ usa
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palooka View Post
"-OLED is amazing because of the contrast ratio and basically infinitely fast pixel response. "
one other thing … oled looks better in darkened room. while the old-style plasmas had rich dark blacks … leds failed miserably in that regard. oleds, because of how they work, retain the rich dark blacks. one may/mayn't be able to discern a dramatic difference while gazing at 20-30 tv monitors at the local walmart, because the surrounding region is fairly well lit. much more noticeable in a dark theater type environment. leds with 'black' background would look medium-dark grey … instead of a rich dark black. let's face it, watching "star wars" or the science-channel illustrating deep space … rich dark black is the way to go.
__________________
at one point in time, i was offered a wooden scipio (handstaff) after a time, i whittled that cane down until it became one ginormous toothpick.

Last edited by albino_manatee; 12-30-2017 at 08:24 AM.
#9
Old 12-30-2017, 08:36 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,980
Is the human eye capable of distinguishing the difference between 1080 and 4k?


Seems kind of gimmicky to me.
#10
Old 12-30-2017, 08:54 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Posts: 2,843
Thanks all. I do have Apple TV, but not properly installed, so the plan is a smart TV, streaming and cutting Dish to save some $$$ in anticipation of retiring soon. I've been lazy about doing that, but the tv made that decision for me now. Curved seemed gimmicky, glad to see that confirmed. The repair would've cost $600, so the repairman wisely suggested simply replace and was kind enough to not charge for his visit- he even set up my old set in place for me in the interim! I was surprised to see how much tv you can get for that amount!
#11
Old 12-30-2017, 09:11 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post

How much do you think a 100 Grand candy bar costs?
Wait..wait, don't tell me... I know this...
#12
Old 12-30-2017, 10:59 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post

How much do you think a 100 Grand candy bar costs?
I'm so old I remember when it was a 10 Grand candy bar
#13
Old 12-30-2017, 11:16 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 12,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by albino_manatee View Post
one other thing … oled looks better in darkened room....
I foresee the return of lava lamps.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 12-30-2017 at 11:17 AM.
#14
Old 12-30-2017, 12:30 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 26,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palooka View Post
-Curved TVs and 3D were both unsuccessful gimmicks and no one makes those TVs any longer.
Actually, I like my 3D capable TV...

... but mostly for watching 3D movies, which are getting harder to get on BluRay.

Obviously, it was a small niche.
#15
Old 12-30-2017, 12:48 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 15,365
Our Vizio 4K (which we use mostly as a digital picture frame) has a feature where the LED backlights can be turned off in dark areas of the picture, to increase contrast.
I found that this feature causes more annoying artifacts than it improves the picture quality, so I turned it off.
#16
Old 12-30-2017, 01:15 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I foresee the return of lava lamps.
Actually, to provide ambient light - I found a 60-watt (equivalent) LED lightbulb for the lamp near my rec room TV. each time you turn it off and on it cycles from 60W to 40W to 20W to provide a dimmer ambient light for TV watching. Ah, technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
Is the human eye capable of distinguishing the difference between 1080 and 4k?


Seems kind of gimmicky to me.
At a certain point there's the law of diminishing returns. 4K is good when you get into the realm of (indulgent) 60-inch and larger TV's.

As for 3D, the study done during the development of IMAX films found that binocular vision for depth perception was meaningless beyond about 15 to 20 feet. After that, what screams "realism" to our brain is high definition and lack of jerkiness. So IMAX was shot with three times the film area of regular 70mm movies; and then is seen closer up, and twice the frame rate, so the picture also reaches more of the peripheral vision. Watching high resolution in IMAX is enough to sometimes induce motion sickness. (When the first IMAX movie was shown to Queen Elizabeth at Ontario Place, they cut out the roller coaster scene after Indira Ghandi had thrown up while watching it a few weeks earlier.)

(Same number of frames per second, but the same frame is flashed on the screen twice to simulate 60fps)

So that is the ultimate destination of TV - a large-screen, full-wall IMAX experience. I've already seen adds for 8K, whatever that is.

Standard HD is 1920x1080. 4K doubles both dimensions, 3840x2160. Just as a fun side note, I am using a 43" 4K TV as my monitor. If your PC can do HDMI (or you buy a DVI to HDMI cable) this is like having 4 regular monitors on your desktop. And, at $379, it was less than a 27" 4K hi-res monitor.

but for you - buy a 4K, and if you use a darkened room to watch TV - look for a higher dynamic range like OLED. There are various streaming devices (like Apple TV, Roku Premiere) which do 4K and Netflix (among others) offers assorted content on 4K.

Keep in mind too, if you get an android TV, some android devices are vulnerable to viruses depending on how secure the manufacturer made it. I'd rather have to throw away a $100 streaming box than a $1000 TV. Plus, you can upgrade the box (as others have mentioned) more cheaply. You don't need a TV that ends up like my WII, with most of those fancy online services "no longer supported".

Last edited by md2000; 12-30-2017 at 01:17 PM.
#17
Old 12-30-2017, 03:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Go to Walmart, buy a TV for a hundred bucks. If the screen is too small, sit closer. Get out an old set of computer speakers, because the speakers will be shitty even on a better TV. If you buy a $4k TV, youre buying a $100 TV and $3900 worth of other functionality, most of which you'll never use. Like really, how fast does your pixel response have to be?
My advice is to put aside a hundred bucks a month. In less than a year you'll be able to afford a 5K TV when they become available.


mmm
#18
Old 12-30-2017, 04:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
Is the human eye capable of distinguishing the difference between 1080 and 4k?


Seems kind of gimmicky to me.
Obviously depends on screen size, but the truth is that for most home TVs it really is at the point of a severely diminished return. The only real reason to get a 4K TV is that that's what most of them are anyway, the technology having become cheap enough that the premium for 4K instead of 1080p is hardly noticeable. Personally I'd rather the manufacturers have put the money into 1080p screen quality, but that's marketing for you.

One way to keep this in perspective is that for a long time -- and in fact still today, to some extent -- digital theaters used the DCI 2K standard, which is exactly the same vertical resolution as 1080p and only slightly greater horizontal resolution, and that was considered good enough for a giant theatrical movie screen. And suddenly it's not good enough for a relatively tiny home television? Sometimes I can hardly tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, and indeed the difference in film quality between different movies can be much greater than the difference between these two resolutions.
#19
Old 12-30-2017, 04:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
I'm so old I remember when it was a 10 Grand candy bar
We only wish we had 10 Grands, for us it was Sawbucks.
#20
Old 12-30-2017, 04:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,676
Do you have a budget or screen size in mind? The TVs are so competitive today that price can be a good indication of quality (although you might not find the extra benefits useful).

Most TV's will be 4k and Smart, so it will be hard to find a TV which doesn't offer those features. The ones which don't do that will be the more basic ones and will likely not have as good of a picture and other shortcuts to save cost. Get the HDR version if you care about picture quality since it makes a noticeable difference.

One benefit of a Smart TV is that you can stream whatever format it recognizes. So if your TV can do 4k HDR, then you can view streams at that resolution on Amazon or whatever. If you depend on an external streaming box, then you might not be able to get the higher quality stream. But really, unless you're above 50-55" or so, the 4k difference won't be super noticeable.
#21
Old 12-30-2017, 11:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
Is the human eye capable of distinguishing the difference between 1080 and 4k?


Seems kind of gimmicky to me.
Yes. If I play a game at 4k its noticeably sharper.
#22
Old 12-30-2017, 11:40 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,335
I recommend you do the following :

1. Shop slickdeals or a similar deal sight and pick a TV that's on sale in your price range

2. The king of the hill right now is a 55 or 65 inch 4k OLED with HDR.

3. Always check RTings for any TV you are considering. Don't buy one that sucks. If it's an LCD TV, make sure it has full array dimming.

4. It doesn't matter what sort of "smart" features the set includes. You can plug a Roku stick in the back or other external streaming device, and it's going to work better than whatever is built into the TV. Also, the TV's "smart" technology will go obsolete long before the set itself typically fails. So you'll need to use an external streaming device regardless. I would just not even consider the smart features, and if the included Netflix/Hulu support happens to be good enough for you when you get it, then use it, otherwise, don't.
#23
Old 12-31-2017, 07:20 AM
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 38,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Go to Walmart, buy a TV for a hundred bucks. If the screen is too small, sit closer. Get out an old set of computer speakers, because the speakers will be shitty even on a better TV.
Moderator Note

jtur88, this is in no way responsive to the questions in the OP.

Quote:
If you buy a $4k TV, youre buying a $100 TV and $3900 worth of other functionality, most of which you'll never use.
As has been pointed out, this indicates you don't even understand the question.

Your response is certainly a threadshit, and so ridiculous ("If the screen is too small, sit closer"?) as to virtually be trolling. In the future, confine yourself to constructive responses in this forum. Do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
#24
Old 12-31-2017, 10:41 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,899
That does bring up a good point that many people ignore in their quest for the best. TV size should entirely depend on the distance it will be viewed from regularly. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking bigger is always better and they just get the biggest TV they can afford in their price range, ignoring all the technical stuff they don't understand. Being a size queen, that's gotta be the most common TV buying mistake there is.
#25
Old 12-31-2017, 11:14 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Clearly there is an upper limit. Sitting a couple feet back from a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbotron is sitting too close to too big.

But other than that, how big/close is too big/close? I'm sure various advisors have rules of thumb for "the ideal". Which amounts to specifying an angular size of the screen. I have no idea what those RoTs suggest. I suppose the typical salesman's RoT is "The biggest you can afford", but that's obvious BS.

But ISTM you can probably go a long way bigger/closer than the "optimal viewing angle" RoT before bad things start to happen. IOW, the slope of the "quality of viewing" curve moving away from the optimal is pretty shallow. Comments?

My current rig is 51" diagonal and it's 14' 6" from eyeball to screen. That's about 20% larger diagonally than my mobile phone held at arms length. And much smaller than my tablet held at arm's length. That seems a smaller angular size than most folks have. I'm not an avid TV watcher so wanted something smaller and less intrusive than I see in some folk's places.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-31-2017 at 11:16 AM.
#26
Old 12-31-2017, 11:39 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,622
Well, this site - http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html - will give you a recommendation.

It points out that an optimum "theatre experience" is about 30 view angle, depending on whose standard you use. For a 55-inch TV screen, that means about 7.5 feet; for 65 inch, 8.8 feet. Measuring my TV setups, mine are about 11 feet for both sizes...

But as I pointed out about Imax screens - the key is that a movie imparts a more convincing "reality" too your visual interpretation in the brain if it fills more of the peripheral vision too, so you are only losing some effect by being further away; you are not failing to experience the movie, it's just not as immersive.

Which of course brings up another point - if it's tripe like "The Hangover III", "Meet the Fokkers" or "Gilligan Island" reruns - do you need an immersive, 3D, surround sound 4K experience? Even serious drama does not often need the full experience. Save that for eye candy - "Titanic", high resolution environmental documentaries like "Blue Planet", or visually complex presentations like the recent spate of science fiction movies. Are you looking to set up a true cinema experience, or just watch "The Bachelorette"?
#27
Old 12-31-2017, 11:45 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,676
One thing to be aware about HD TV's is that they typically have motion smoothing set to on. The purpose is to make the picture sharper, but it often has the effect of making the image flatter and more plasticly looking. The scene may look like it was lit for a cheap soap-opera. If you don't like that look, make sure you turn off that feature.
#28
Old 12-31-2017, 11:46 AM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by singular1 View Post
Thanks all. I do have Apple TV, but not properly installed, so the plan is a smart TV, streaming and cutting Dish to save some $$$ in anticipation of retiring soon. I've been lazy about doing that, but the tv made that decision for me now.
Be aware that the big weakness of built-in smart apps is the user interface. With the remote supplied with the TV you will be given an on-screen alphabet and you will use arrow keys on the remote to enter a search item. It will take you ten minutes to type in "Schwarzenegger".

There are newer third party remotes that have a qwerty keyboard, but best and cheapest is to use Apple TV, Roku, or my favourite Chromecast ($35). These let you use your phone or tablet to run the TV apps.
#29
Old 12-31-2017, 11:48 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,426
@LSLGuy IIRC Roger Ebert said your distance from the screen should be twice the width of the screen.
#30
Old 12-31-2017, 12:07 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 2,485
They don't make TVs that are too big yet. It'll always look smaller in a month, so go big.
#31
Old 12-31-2017, 01:38 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
@LSLGuy IIRC Roger Ebert said your distance from the screen should be twice the width of the screen.
So I ought to have a 7+ foot wide TV.

I'd be afraid of falling into the thing and never returning. Like the old Time Tunnel series or whatever thing Syfy(?) has now whose name I can't remember.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-31-2017 at 01:38 PM.
#32
Old 12-31-2017, 10:42 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 26,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Which of course brings up another point - if it's tripe like "The Hangover III", "Meet the Fokkers" or "Gilligan Island" reruns - do you need an immersive, 3D, surround sound 4K experience? Even serious drama does not often need the full experience. Save that for eye candy - "Titanic", high resolution environmental documentaries like "Blue Planet", or visually complex presentations like the recent spate of science fiction movies.
.... and that's why my TV has a setting where you can watch those old shows like Gilligan's Island in a format closer to the original - a smaller image so you don't weird pixelation artifacts when the machine is trying to upgrade something that was low-rez to begin with.

Really, my late husband is the one who picked this TV out. I've really loved it. I suppose that's just an example where you need to do your research and pick out something that fits your viewing habits and desires.
#33
Old 01-01-2018, 08:06 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
One thing to be aware about HD TV's is that they typically have motion smoothing set to on. The purpose is to make the picture sharper, but it often has the effect of making the image flatter and more plasticly looking. The scene may look like it was lit for a cheap soap-opera. If you don't like that look, make sure you turn off that feature.
It is, in fact, called the soap opera effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c|net
[W]ith 24fps content (namely Hollywood movies and most nonreality, prime-time TV shows like sitcoms and dramas), there's a problem. The cadence of film, and the associated blurring of the slower frame rate's image, is linked to the perception of fiction. Check out the scathing reviews of the high frame rate version of "The Hobbit" for proof of that. Even if this perception seems grandiose -- the look of 24fps is expected with movies and fiction TV shows. Even though the TV and movie industries have been moving away from shooting on actual film, the new digital cameras are set for 24fps because the audience for fictional programming expects that look.

SOE messes with this cadence. By creating new frames between the 24 original frames, it causes it to look like 30fps or 60fps content. In other words, it makes movies (24fps) look like soap operas (30/60fps). And thus, a name is born.
The "scathing review" linked to on the c|net page expresses the phenomenon more simply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Morrison
I didn't hate [HDR Hobbit], at least not so far as the motion went. I suppose that after a while, I could get used to it. However, there was a much larger, and more fatal issue. I couldn't suspend disbelief. Not in the slightest. Not for a second.

Our entire lives we've been conditioned to accept the aesthetics of 24fps "film" as fiction, and higher framerates (like "video") as reality. Think local news versus any movie. "Reality" TV versus scripted primetime TV. There is no technological reason why TV dramas and comedies are shot at 24fps (or are tweaked in post-production to look like they were). Yet, they all are.
Peoples' sensitivity to the effect varies. When I got my 4k smart TV a couple years ago, the first one in the family, my brother had no idea what I was talking about even in a scene I picked as a demonstration because it had jumped out at me, making me look up the phenenoma in the first place.

Last edited by DesertDog; 01-01-2018 at 08:07 AM. Reason: Damn invisible typos
#34
Old 01-01-2018, 08:53 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,098
I think 4k is absolutely noticeable to the human eye (at least mine anyway). A great way to experience 4K is to watch "The Hunt" on Netflix as it's streamed in 4K. It's amazingly gorgeous (plus narraton by the awesome David Attenborough).
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
#35
Old 01-01-2018, 04:39 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,900
I replaced my 50 " 13 yo Panasonic Plasma (720p) with a "55 LG OLED (4k) last year during Black Friday and I honestly have no regrets. My advice follows most of upthread, to wit:
1) At normal viewing distances, you probably can't tell the difference between a good 1080p (HD) and a 4k (UHD) picture. Where it is discernible to most people would have you sitting 5 ft in front of a 55" TV. So this is less of a concern than the next bits. This link to reference home theater explains it well.
2) Smart TV features are a nice to have but as noted a Roku, media server, or Chromecast Ultra will get you there and is more easily upgraded. I use the Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime options the most on our LG. I disabled the voice control and Plus features after reading the rather invasive Terms of Service for them.
3)HDR, Wide Colour Gamut and Dolby Vison are the must haves and if your budget allows, OLED. The black levels are amazing, and the picture is crisp and crystal clear once you've done a little calibration. rtings.com is a great resource for this.
4) A good UHD source on a properly set up TV is simply sublime. I can tell when the source switches from 1080p to 4k on The Grand Tour as there is just this added richness and depth. It's almost like looking out a window which would seem to contradict what I said earlier but there is just something to it that makes a slight difference.

Chefguy, here's the chart for recommended viewing distances. https://rtings.com/tv/reviews/by...e-relationship Technically I should have gone to a 60" set at 9 ft but that would have meant moving wall mounted speakers and a bunch of wiring which I didn't want to do.
__________________
Art is anything you can get away with. -Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by swampspruce; 01-01-2018 at 04:40 PM. Reason: cna't type
#36
Old 01-01-2018, 08:49 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampspruce View Post
4) A good UHD source on a properly set up TV is simply sublime. I can tell when the source switches from 1080p to 4k on The Grand Tour as there is just this added richness and depth. It's almost like looking out a window which would seem to contradict what I said earlier but there is just something to it that makes a slight difference.
One reason it looks better despite the various eye charts suggesting otherwise is there's also a big increase in bit-rate for 4k netflix. It's around 25 megabits instead of around 8-10 megabits. This means less encoding errors and a sharper picture...even sitting back at a distance where you only barely are able to see the extra details from the 4k in itself.

It's possible that 4k blu rays don't look much better, from far away, on an identical in spec 1080p display vs a 4k set. I mean, I dunno, blu ray is such yesterday's tech. Who wants to pay so much to 'own' a plastic disk you might lose and have to wait for it to even ship to your home, etc.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-01-2018 at 08:50 PM.
#37
Old 01-02-2018, 12:07 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: California
Posts: 8,364
What about a projector? All that bullshit about newfangled 4D-trixels and such can't beat a screen that's 3x larger. 1080p projectors are quite affordable now and offer a pretty neat experience vs some tiny incremental improvement in TV resolution...

Last edited by Reply; 01-02-2018 at 12:09 AM.
#38
Old 01-02-2018, 01:04 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
What about a projector? All that bullshit about newfangled 4D-trixels and such can't beat a screen that's 3x larger. 1080p projectors are quite affordable now and offer a pretty neat experience vs some tiny incremental improvement in TV resolution...
They're pretty cool, my old man has one in his media room. It's 167" and takes up an entire wall. It's augmented with nine high-end wall mounted surround speakers, a giant subwoofer in the corner of the room and is powered by a massive five channel amp.

The resolution hasn't caught up with 4k yet in terms of mass production and affordability, but I'm sure it's on the horizon.

ETA: what I meant is that they are available, but terribly expensive. The higher end model 4k projectors can easily run over $20,000...or more.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns

Last edited by FoieGrasIsEvil; 01-02-2018 at 01:06 AM.
#39
Old 01-02-2018, 09:05 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
What about a projector? All that bullshit about newfangled 4D-trixels and such can't beat a screen that's 3x larger. 1080p projectors are quite affordable now and offer a pretty neat experience vs some tiny incremental improvement in TV resolution...
Eh. The advantage of these swanky new 4k sets are :

a. The picture quality has continued to be improved on. HDR makes a huge difference. All the new, high end sets are 4k, so if you want to get improved picture quality with the latest sets, you'll end up with a 4k one either way.

b. If you ever do connect a (recent model) game console or computer to one, you'll be able to instantly tell it's 4k. Makes a huge difference for that.

c. The quality of a 65" OLED, so long as you aren't sitting at movie theater distances, blows the doors off a projector. Vastly better contrast, less washed out of an image, you don't save any money with a projector + screen that is remotely competitive, the screen is in much better focus.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-02-2018 at 09:06 AM.
#40
Old 01-02-2018, 09:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,676
Quite often, you can get a better price on a TV by buying it at certain times in the year, as you can see in this graph. One of the lowest times just ended, which is the Christmas buying season. You can see the prices may return to that level around Feb/March as the manufacturers start to move out their old inventory.

If you're not too picky about TVs, check out Craigslist. Everyone who just got a new TV for the whiz-bang features will be trying to get rid of their old one, and often at a pretty good price. Just make sure you give it a good test run to make sure the picture and features work as expected.
#41
Old 01-02-2018, 10:42 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
One reason it looks better despite the various eye charts suggesting otherwise is there's also a big increase in bit-rate for 4k netflix. It's around 25 megabits instead of around 8-10 megabits. This means less encoding errors and a sharper picture...even sitting back at a distance where you only barely are able to see the extra details from the 4k in itself.

It's possible that 4k blu rays don't look much better, from far away, on an identical in spec 1080p display vs a 4k set. I mean, I dunno, blu ray is such yesterday's tech. Who wants to pay so much to 'own' a plastic disk you might lose and have to wait for it to even ship to your home, etc.
AIUI, The UHD Blu-Rays look even better than streamed Netflix does. I have 25 Mb/s coming in usually but have only seen BR UHD demos in store so I can't honestly do an apples to apples comparison (until I order my Oppo BD-203) but the link here has. I can say that soundwise, streaming doesn't even come close (yet) as I have yet to see anything streaming DTS:X or Atmos and when I watch movies the sound is incredibly important to me.

FWIW, I've lost far more digital content over the years than plastic discs. I like having hard copy.
__________________
Art is anything you can get away with. -Marshall McLuhan
#42
Old 01-02-2018, 10:47 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,838
It is a truth universally acknowledged that improving the resolution, increasing the size or any other enhancement totally fails to improve 99% of the programmes.

I have been using a pretty decent Samsung LED TV which could show 3D if it didn't make us nauseous, for several years. Much of the programming we watch is not in HD because it was not recorded in HD. Even that which is recorded in HD is often not really improved - this mainly applies to indoor stuff like the soaps. Anything imported from the USA (we get a lot of that) is a poor quality picture, largely, I imagine, because of the different colour/ PAL/NTSC colour systems. What really does get the benefit is anything recent on DVD and anything shot in the outdoors. The wonderful Blue Planet is a prime example and worth the upgrade on its own.

My advice is to go for a size that fits your room and the best quality you can afford. When you get it, the settings may well be wrong for your situation, especially if it has been set to Dynamic which is essentially a shop mode and should be avoided, while Cinema modes are designed to be viewed in low light only. So you either need to pay someone to set it up for you or go online and find the settings that work best for that model. It will certainly be a lot less bright than the showroom settings, but they have to compete with strip lighting. There are many adjustments from grey scale to motion handling available and it takes time to get them right. It's well worth the effort though.

This site offers good basic advice. http://techradar.com/how-to/tele...our-tv-1249665

Last edited by bob++; 01-02-2018 at 10:49 AM.
#43
Old 01-02-2018, 11:37 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
It is a truth universally acknowledged that improving the resolution, increasing the size or any other enhancement totally fails to improve 99% of the programmes.

I have been using a pretty decent Samsung LED TV which could show 3D if it didn't make us nauseous, for several years. Much of the programming we watch is not in HD because it was not recorded in HD. Even that which is recorded in HD is often not really improved - this mainly applies to indoor stuff like the soaps. Anything imported from the USA (we get a lot of that) is a poor quality picture, largely, I imagine, because of the different colour/ PAL/NTSC colour systems. What really does get the benefit is anything recent on DVD and anything shot in the outdoors. The wonderful Blue Planet is a prime example and worth the upgrade on its own.
DVDs do not play "HD" video. Blu-Ray discs do, but they're not the same as DVDs. A PAL DVD gives a 720540 resolution; HD is 1280 720 up to1920 1080 ("1080p"). No wonder you didn't see a difference.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 01-02-2018 at 11:37 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: [email protected].

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: phonebook delivery stringfellow name betty urban dictionary fried cum pitchy singing buying nitrous dermatologist mole combine shipping aluminum fire rick hoffman imdb mentally handicapped helmet mine sweeper strategy video games suck tsuro tiles futurama asian craigslist posting blocked frank cady grave steel 2x4 hydrofluoric acid accident waving handkerchief newspaper carier craigslist redirect long fancy names girl friday meaning swine hund mr first name exploding goat tv royalties tvfool map needle sterilization creepy boohbah car battery dead after sitting 2 weeks what is batshit crazy glue to use on foam brakes vibrating at high speed fedex not home for required signature vanilla extract have alcohol amazon prime charged me 1 dollar do pupils dilate when you die characters with heart disease in literature actress in american home shield commercial michael phelps teeth fixed before and after hulu curb your enthusiasm episodes social clubs name suggestions permanent press vs delicate dryer how to store books in storage jury duty first time songs about being tough in the butt, bob how much does it cost to have a cat put down valve stem cap stuck what happens if you lie on a college application how fast can you go in the left lane if 3 is a trilogy what is 4 finding bed bugs with black light is antarctica a land mass devil beating his wife what does long island iced tea taste like when to transplant butterfly bush club soda with lime silver's sock class toe-up socks song lyrics with baby in them songs with johnny in the title walgreens ear wax removal cost why is a stove called a range non religious bible study why do chefs wear tall hats