Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should I buy a 4K TV?
- Thread starter brinary001
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LG oled 1080p 55" looks nice and unlike 4k will deliver now , that's what I'd go for
By the time 4k is easily available , standards & connections will have moved on and everything on the market now will be redundant
4k is the new 3d , hype designed to shift tv's not improve the user experience
By the time 4k is easily available , standards & connections will have moved on and everything on the market now will be redundant
4k is the new 3d , hype designed to shift tv's not improve the user experience
I personally do not think 4K is the new 3d. To me 720p HD replaced SD and 1080p replaced 720p and 4k will replace 1080p. Like pretty much all TV's are now 1080p it will not be long until all TV's will be 4K. On your first comment that 4K will be replace sometime after that. I agree but I think it will be 8K. To me it is just a progression of the resolution. But other things will make the picture better as well. But, in no way would I compare 4K to 3D which very few people want. Not wanting 4K would be like people not wanting HD in the past. I hate to say this but I was pretty happy with SD until I finally got the content and a nice HD TV and now I do not remember why I did not see it from the beginning. Now regarding 4K. I have tested with Netflix 4K and I have to say I do not see a real difference compared to Netflix 1080p. But my test is using the Vizio Netflix App for 4K and Apple TV for 1080p. I think we are simply early and it will get better when the content and delivery catch up.
If you're going to wait to have all standards, it will be a long time, as broadcasting still needs to catch up.
I think most of the 2015 vintage is acceptable enough, given the technologies mentioned previously, plus the promise for some TV sets of an upgrade to HDR when the thing settles a bit.
It could be better, with DisplayPort 1.3 3D 4K 60 Hz 4:4:4, but given that fewer and fewer people need built-in tuners these days, the availability of Netflix 4K and Youtube 4K, that they are ready for BluRay 4K, I think it is enough if you're are not going to put off buying a TV at all.
Another thing that will be missing is a new codec Cisco is working on, but I imagine there's a tiny possibility that could come with an upgrade, at least for those with a Series 9 SUHDTV.
TV manufacturers have always marketed reality, I think this time it applies very well.
Netflix 4K is quite great. Imagine what BluRay 4K @ 128Mbps will look like.
Youtube is recommending 4K60 uploads around 50Mbps.
I think most of the 2015 vintage is acceptable enough, given the technologies mentioned previously, plus the promise for some TV sets of an upgrade to HDR when the thing settles a bit.
It could be better, with DisplayPort 1.3 3D 4K 60 Hz 4:4:4, but given that fewer and fewer people need built-in tuners these days, the availability of Netflix 4K and Youtube 4K, that they are ready for BluRay 4K, I think it is enough if you're are not going to put off buying a TV at all.
Another thing that will be missing is a new codec Cisco is working on, but I imagine there's a tiny possibility that could come with an upgrade, at least for those with a Series 9 SUHDTV.
TV manufacturers have always marketed reality, I think this time it applies very well.
Netflix 4K is quite great. Imagine what BluRay 4K @ 128Mbps will look like.
Youtube is recommending 4K60 uploads around 50Mbps.
+1 for OLED if you can find it cheap. I got mine for $1500.
Samsung is the only 4K provider who has a TV that supports the current 4k specs (HDR, color gamut, 10-bit). Those are the samsung SUHD sets. Sony may have some too, but you will spend much more than $1500.
Samsung is the only 4K provider who has a TV that supports the current 4k specs (HDR, color gamut, 10-bit). Those are the samsung SUHD sets. Sony may have some too, but you will spend much more than $1500.
I'm thinking about this one at the moment: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/vizio-e...lack/3417039.p?id=1219581289772&skuId=3417039
Good price, good size, good tv. Plus, I did the measurements and it should fit nicely in the back of my humble sedan for transporting to and from school.
Good price, good size, good tv. Plus, I did the measurements and it should fit nicely in the back of my humble sedan for transporting to and from school.
I got the 2015 48" Series 8 curved SUHD for around $1300 in Europe. This was a great deal, about $1000 less than the list price.
OP, only you can answer this question. What do you want?
This is a pretty biased crowd. You can't get objective input from much of this crowd. Apple has not yet endorsed 4K, so the crowd bias is going to be against it. You might as well post "should I get a Windows or Mac computer" or "iPhone or Android phone", etc. The majority is always going to argue with whatever Apple has, appears to endorse or appears to be embracing soon. NFC was "stupid, gimmick, etc" before Apple implemented it and then we wanted to boycott stores that wouldn't let us pay that way. Bigger screen phones were abominations, stupid, fragmentation, "99% don't want", "man purses" & "pants with bigger pockets" until Apple rolled out bigger-screen iPhones (BTW, I still don't see much in the way of man pursues and pants with bigger pockets- did nobody in America buy those "abominations"???).
At one point Apple rolled out 2 new iPad models: one with retina and one without. The crowd passionately argued why retina was must-have on one but not needed on the other. Then, a year later, the latter got a retina screen and the crowd argued why retina was must-have. It is the nature of the crowd to default to whatever Apple has, endorses or appears to be embracing very soon (I'm looking at you split screen multitasking and 2GB RAM, the former being gimmicky and stupid on tablet-sized (competitor) screens and the latter being "completely unnecessary" because "Apple optimizes iOS so well that it doesn't need more than 1GB RAM", "who wants double the RAM at the expense of battery life?" and other so commonly-spun rationale(?); etc.)
Buy a 1080p TV and if Apple endorses 4K the next day with a 4K-capableTV 4, a new iPhone camera that can shoot 4K video, etc, a lot of these same arguments against 4K will flip... just like they did back when Apple clung to "720p is good enough" (for HD) and the majority sided against 1080p (gimmick, don't need, can't see a difference from an average sitting distance, "the chart", storage requirements, until broadband bandwidth is expanded everywhere, until everything in the store is available at 1080p, etc). Then Apple endorsed 1080p with Apple products shooting and playing 1080p and the whole "720p is good enough" argument evaporated. 720p was so right before Apple embraced 1080p and then 1080p became the new "so right" (again see bigger-screen iPhones, no iSight camera in iPad 1 vs. FaceTime in iPad 2, 24-hour battery life in Samsung smart watches being ridiculous but 24-hour Apple watch is perfectly doable, and on and on). Now 1080p is playing the role of 720p and 4K is 1080p. Apply the same arguments until Apple goes 4K, then evaporate the "1080p is good enough" sentiment. Repeat with 4K vs. 8K.
Consider what you want from this TV now and in the next few years (upwards of even 5-10 years). Note where technology is going rather than where it is or has been, as TVs tend to be a longer-term-use product than- say- individual iPhone models. Then choose the one that YOU want. If the difference between them comes down to only a few hundred dollars, even $500 difference for otherwise same-size screens would be like spending an additional $50/yr over 10 years or $100/yr over 5 years (of use). Save up the extra dollars if you want the added resolution or use store same-as-cash financing to get it now and spread the extra out in a slightly higher payment during the same-as-cash term.
All that said, take that "stupid", "gimmicky", "abomination-sized" iPhone 6 down to your favorite TV retailer and buy the one you want with that "nobody needs", "stupid", "gimmicky" Apple Pay. If you want to please this crowd, by using the "best iPhone ever" and the "best payment option" ever, you'll have already run with two of our recent, collective flip flops and- depending on your choice of TV- may simply beat us to our third.
To an extent I agree with what you write about Apple stuff. However, as a few already pointed out:
You will not get 4k from most 4k TV:s. Reason being the cable and input standards. Say you get a gaming PC that can handle 4k, the TV can not display it... Until you get DP 1.2, HDMI 2.0 or whatelse that supports proper 4k at preferably 60hz... 4k is dead in the water... regardless if Apple has adopted it or not. Why do you think the Apple external screen hasn't been updated? It is 4 years old... I believe they will release a new one when one connector is all you need to run the 5k scren it is, until then, the other manufacurers will keep on selling their 5k:s (HP and DELL) requiring you to use two cables and hope the sync is ok....
Then you have to consider the screen size. 4K at 48" no one will see a difference in the resolution bump. When HDR content comes out you will get that benefit, but I would much rather have a 55" 1080p OLED for the contrast alone.
I really think by the time 4K content is widely available we will be on to 5k or even 8k. A lot of people think 3D is gimmicky, but that is one of the biggest benefits to 4K TVs in the current state. Sony xbr900a is simply amazing to watch a 3D movie on (full resolution passive 3D)
I bought this size to use as a monitor, so I can see the difference. It is already too big, but the 40" I was planning to buy might be too small to read text comfortably.If Blu Ray 4K is on shelves next year, that will count as widely available for practical purposes, as TV will lag a lot. Even without going to 4K, it is unacceptable that some cable operators still distribute many HD channels as SD.
Last edited:
from a computer monitor stance the resolution increase makes sense at that size. 48" viewed from anything over 5 feet will not be noticeable.
That's why I told the OP that if he wants to watch from the couch, he should get a really big one.
I thought I would chime in. My job is electronic sales at HHGregg so I'm around TVs every day. While yes 4K content is scarce right now there is still content out there if you have netflix or DirecTV, but even if you're watching 720 or 1080 you're still going to get a little bit better picture because of the TVs upscaler. Much like Photoshop the TV is going to enhance the video to the best of its ability to give you a better picture. On a side note when playing video games the biggest thing to look for is the display lag time. anything over 50 you don't want if you game competitively. DisplayLag.com is the best place to find the lag times on TVs.
The financial advice might seem impertinent, but I have to agree with the other posters who are telling you to save your money. Even if you aren't paying a dime for school and your parents are helping you out, you're better saving whatever you can.
Buy the 1080p tv and buy the 4k tv as a present to yourself when you get your first job.
I believe that 4K is in its infancy. For you guys I would recommend a 60" 1080P TV. These TVs are great for gaming, movies and football games. When in college you need to unwind (I have been there), so getting a quality 69" 1080P TV (which would be cheaper) would suffice. I have a Samsung 1080P 8000 series model and it's great picture and can be hooked up for 5:1 sound. I am sure that this TV would more than suit your needs.
Buy yourself a 4K TV as a graduation gift or a new job gift. By that time, 4K technology will be mature.
Buy yourself a 4K TV as a graduation gift or a new job gift. By that time, 4K technology will be mature.