Anybody considering a 4K (UHD) TV?

[Ole Anderson]

I didn't want to hijack the thread on model and brand for a light TV watcher, so here goes:

Anybody else really looking at the new UHD TV's that are starting to pop up? From what I can tell, they are exploding on the scene with prices in the range of 1080p sets a few years ago. A year ago I saw a really big one (maybe 84"?) in the Sony store in Las Vegas for something like $25k. Today a 50+ incher is well under $2,000. My 13 year old 53" Panny HD projection set gave up the ghost the day after Christmas last year. If it had lasted two more years I would have gone with a big (60"+) 4K set. But it didn't so I got an interim $500 1080p 47 incher to get me by a few years, when it would be relegated to the finished basement, replacing my 30 year old 27" Mitsubishi. So, I am planning on upgrading to a UHD (4K) set in about two years when the prices drop more and the media available expands considerably. Probably a 60-65 incher which is really needed to take advantage of the ultra high definition. It might be a bit of an uphill struggle as my wife is happy watching SD content. Go figure. But it will be less than the cost of a SawStop and I will use it a whole lot more hours per year.

In August I saw a 55"? thin, curved screen UHD OLED set for about $1700 at BestBuy. I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. The detail was incredible and the colors were beautiful. It couldn't have been much thicker than a half inch. Amazing. Imagine the detail of four 1080p sets slapped together. They are that good. Consumers Reports had a good report on the new sets, claiming they would take over in a few years. So far 4k content is limited to streaming Netflix and a few special players with 4k media, but the networks are already working on it. However CU said 1080p content really pops on the new UHD sets, making them worth it even if just for existing HD content.

Here is a good article on UHD: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/tel...-4k-tv-1048954

[David Weaver]

I guess they have to keep coming up with something as long as the current stuff quickly becomes commodity priced goods, but I can't imagine spending more than a few hundred dollars on a TV ever again.

I don't live in a household of big TV watchers, though. I'll look at UHD TVs if my TV (which I only got because I was in a bind when the TV before it gave up the ghost all at once) gives up the ghost and UHD tvs are a couple of hundred dollars or less.

Other than sports, I can hardly even identify anything worth watching, and movies have really gone into the toilets since the box office dollars have been dropping and video revenue comes in via subscription rather than $4 rental like we used to do at blockbuster.

[Lee Schierer]

I can't see (no pun intended) getting one until there is more content available. Even the so called HD programming available now isn't 1080P quality most of the time. Unless you watch lots of movies the programming just isn't ready yet for the 4K sets.

[Ole Anderson]

I am not a big football fan, but that is one piece of content that would really benefit in the future from UHD, keeping track of all of those small moving figures on a field. Just compare watching it now on a nice HD screen vs watching a few years ago on a 27" SD screen. Agreed, it isn't for everyone, as a lot of folks just don't care, just as some of you love your Festools and others are fine with Ryobi. Some are happy listening to AM, while for others, even FM isn't cutting the mustard anymore. Don't get me started on surround sound...

[David Weaver]

HD has made following stuff on sports programs a lot easier - that and a good enough refresh rate to keep the picture clear while it's in motion.

I agree on the surround sound stuff - I spent money on that while I was in college as a music fan (and wanting the speakers to double as good movie sound), but in the end, I'd rather have crisp clear stereo speakers, and the reality is with young kids, it's hard to use even those too much. Sound is better when you can hear it and feel it, but most other people don't like to feel it or even hear it!!

[Eric DeSilva]

I think now would be a bad time to have to replace a big TV, given where we are. Right now, I'd probably still go cheap HD over 4K--but in two years, I think you'll be right. As I understand it, there is information built into most Blu-Rays at the moment that help upscaling the 1080p to 4K--it isn't true 4K, but it is supposed to be more than 1080p. But I don't feel like Blu-Rays are the content I'm watching, and nothing I'm watching seems to be in 4K (nor does it seem like it will be in the next two years). When they migrate AMC HD to AMC 4K, I'm definitely in.

[Myk Rian]

I don't see where any of the new HD TVs would work with cable. Comcast is jamming so much through the pipes now, HD is as good as regular TV used to be.
Depressing.

[Scott Shepherd]

Found this post on CNET. The title made me laugh.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-h...-still-stupid/

[Brian Elfert]

Most signal sources for HDTV other than Blueray or over the air are highly compressed. An over the air signal usually looks better in HD than the same signal on cable or satellite due to compression. If they do massive compression on HD what happens to UHD when they start offering it? How much material has even been filmed in 4K/UHD other than some demo stuff. Movies done on film could be remastered in UHD I would think.

[Pat Barry]

I am not a big football fan, but that is one piece of content that would really benefit in the future from UHD, keeping track of all of those small moving figures on a field. Just compare watching it now on a nice HD screen vs watching a few years ago on a 27" SD screen. Agreed, it isn't for everyone, as a lot of folks just don't care, just as some of you love your Festools and others are fine with Ryobi. Some are happy listening to AM, while for others, even FM isn't cutting the mustard anymore. Don't get me started on surround sound...

Why is it that I think you are talking about futbol, not football. lol

[Larry Browning]

I think that CNET article that Scott posted is right on the button. I also think that now is not the time to be spending the extra cash on 4K when probably 95% of content is not 4K. The manufactures are trying to find some new technology that will make all the current 1080p owners want to get something new.
If I was in the market fro a new TV I would be looking at one of the 60" LED's in the low $1000 or below range. I think that will be the sweet spot for value.
On the other hand, if owning the latest wizz bang technology is your thing, the a 4K TV will be the thing to get. And you will be all set for all the 4K content when it comes (whenever that is).

[Myk Rian]

And you will be all set for all the 4K content when it comes (whenever that is).

Assuming the TV will last that long.

[Jerome Stanek]

Can we say Betamax

[Larry Browning]

Assuming the TV will last that long.

My point exactly!

[Larry Browning]

Can we say Betamax

Or 3D tv or 4k tv, I wonder what's next?
The only thing I know for sure is that there will be something next.

I like the concept letting of other folks throw stuff against the wall and then I can see what sticks.

BTW: Betamax was always considered to be better technology than VHS, but because Sony was not willing to license it to other vendors (can we say Apple), it failed. Well actually Apple had a bit better luck, but that's being nit-picky.