Too soon to buy UHD or 4K TVs (no content)

[skinsguy37]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Re-reading my post:
"4K is a rip off and a total waste of money."
Ok, that was harsh. It's not a RIP OFF, but it's simply not worth the premium you pay today. If 4K/UHD (and yes, OP, it IS the same thing) were only $200 more? I'd tell people to get them...

I think there are TVs out there that are 4K ready, or 4K compatible, but the feature is not a main feature of the TV (if that makes any sense.) From what I have read, the biggest knock on true 4K televisions, was it's introducing of artifacts into the picture when trying to up-convert content. If this is true (I haven't seen this with my own eyes, so I'm just going by what I've read), then to me, it wouldn't make sense having to put up with watching poorly up-converted HD movies when they already look brilliant on the present technology.

So, I'd say, if having a 4K compatible TV is very important to someone, then as long as it's 70" or bigger. You're not going to tell a difference if it's a 50" TV and you're more than likely sitting 9 feet away from it. Actually, at that point, you're not going to tell much of a difference between 720p and 1080p at that distance and size of TV.

Which goes into the other reason why I would hold off. Broadcast television that broadcasts in HD, only broadcast in 1080i; which is equivalent more to 720p than 1080p. So, adding more pixels isn't going to make a difference with the broadcasts. What makes a difference is all the other video processing the TV comes with, such as the refresh rate (which is usually the cinema motion thing - great for sports, weird on TV shows and movies.)

Honestly, the better approach to improving HDTVs would be to improve on the ability to make SD content, such as DVDs and SD channels, look better. And to also continue improving on the technologies of completely eliminating motion blur when watching sports or fast moving movies, without making the movies and TV shows look weird. And also, have HD broadcast in true 1080p, with sports and TV shows all shot in true 1080p. Let that part catch up first.

Having said all of that, as long as there are first adopters willing to spend the mega bucks on the latest and greatest, then it will continue to help push down the cost of the technology that is most useful today - making it better on everyone else! So, maybe we should be encouraging as many people as possible to buy 4K televisions?

[John7777]

Originally Posted by Miker2069

What is your bandwidth used to consume UHD content from Amazon/Netflix? Curious as it says it needs 25 MB/s downstream for non-jitter viewing.

I think my bandwith is about 50mbs. Anyway, I've never noticed any kind of jitter problem.

[metroxian]

Originally Posted by Miker2069

I've been looking at upgrading my HD TV to a 4K TV (and recently I learned that UHD and 4K are *not* the same thing). I love the picture quality, however, as with any new tech., there doesn't seem to be any UHD/4K media available (i.e., for sale or rental through say RedBox). I know Amazon and Netflix are now offering UHD content *but* they are recommending a minimum 25 MB/s downlink internet connection (wow) to stream it properly. So it seems that the hardware is there and the media now needs to catch up (as it did with 1080p HD).

I've been reading that the movies and TV media won't really be available until *late* 2015. I'm thinking it's not worth purchasing a UHD/4K TV now as there's not enough content to take advantage of it and in a year when it is available the price point will be much cheaper and the tech would have evolved even more.

Thoughts?

By time there's enough content to justify the cost of 4K, the 4k phenomena will have advanced to more K. I may cost you more now, but at least it will be paid for by time you need to upgrade.

[wit-nit]

8K and 10K are in the works now. I forsee in the near future 4K prices dropping rapidly like the plasmas did.