Purchasing of a new TV

[Blujelly]

Afternoon all,

I'm currently looking into getting a new TV, my budget is around £800 - £1000.

I'd prefer a 3D TV if possible with 4K I've had a look around and seen it is possible on this budget and some it isn't. I'd also prefer to go big max spec 60' preferable combo of at least 2 of the 3 I've mentioned.

LG / Samsung would be my push towards but its only because most of tech is owned by them so I'm convinced that way, unless you know other's and why there better.

Just wondering if you lot could maybe give of your favourite TV's (you have) or are looking on getting in the near future. Any questions please ask

 

[mattopotamus]

You are better off waiting and save a little more if you can. You will not get a 4K TV with actual 4K specs (outside the resolution) for that price.

 

[zarf2007]

Afternoon all,

I'm currently looking into getting a new TV, my budget is around £800 - £1000.

I'd prefer a 3D TV if possible with 4K I've had a look around and seen it is possible on this budget and some it isn't. I'd also prefer to go big max spec 60' preferable combo of at least 2 of the 3 I've mentioned.

LG / Samsung would be my push towards but its only because most of tech is owned by them so I'm convinced that way, unless you know other's and why there better.

Just wondering if you lot could maybe give of your favourite TV's (you have) or are looking on getting in the near future. Any questions please ask

either of these will do you, and you get JL customer service and free 5 year warranty:

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...-with-freeview-hd-and-built-in-wi-fi/p2056414

or

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...-with-freeview-hd-and-built-in-wi-fi/p1929341


both are £1k. The first one is a better spec I think....

or this for £100 more:

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...and-built-in-wi-fi/p1939786#tabinfo-spcl-offr


Only downside is no 3D but tbh I wouldnt worry, that tech is so last year. These are all 55" but you won't get larger than that/with 3D in your budget.

also always buy Samsung for TV's, they beat LG, sony etc into the floor.

 

[mattopotamus]

either of these will do you, and you get JL customer service and free 5 year warranty:

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...-with-freeview-hd-and-built-in-wi-fi/p2056414

or

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...-with-freeview-hd-and-built-in-wi-fi/p1929341


both are £1k. The first one is a better spec I think....

or this for £100 more:

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...and-built-in-wi-fi/p1939786#tabinfo-spcl-offr


Only downside is no 3D but tbh I wouldnt worry, that tech is so last year. These are all 55" but you won't get larger than that/with 3D in your budget.

also always buy Samsung for TV's, they beat LG, sony etc into the floor.

As I said above, as long as the OP knows he is buying an outdated 4K set then sure. Otherwise, I would just wait.

 

[Blujelly]

As I said above, as long as the OP knows he is buying an outdated 4K set then sure. Otherwise, I would just wait.

I assume there are new updates due soon?

I've seen a few other's (link should work below) when it comes to spec of TV's its not my specialist. I'd love an LG but the only problem is most of them have 2 HDMI ports...

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/s_action/compare/10132386-10122469-10122384.html

 

[mattopotamus]

I assume there are new updates due soon?

I've seen a few other's (link should work below) when it comes to spec of TV's its not my specialist. I'd love an LG but the only problem is most of them have 2 HDMI ports...

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/s_action/compare/10132386-10122469-10122384.html

Most of the early 4K sets lack hardware and things like increased color gamut and HDR cannot be added via software if the hardware is lacking. The sets you linked to, and most early sets, are just a resolution increase and nothing more. 99.9% of people sitting at a normal viewing difference will not notice.

 

[Blujelly]

Most of the early 4K sets lack hardware and things like increased color gamut and HDR cannot be added via software if the hardware is lacking. The sets you linked to, and most early sets, are just a resolution increase and nothing more. 99.9% of people sitting at a normal viewing difference will not notice.

So as a guide line for myself the ones I liked spec's wise there good, but obviously with the new set due out the hardware would produce better picture quality (but as you mentioned only a few people could tell)?

Would it be safe to say them in link are good ones to go compare with and even buy?

 

[mattopotamus]

So as a guide line for myself the ones I liked spec's wise there good, but obviously with the new set due out the hardware would produce better picture quality (but as you mentioned only a few people could tell)?

Would it be safe to say them in link are good ones to go compare with and even buy?

I meant most 4K TVs today are useless b.c they are just a resolution bump and you cannot tell a difference. In order to get on that has the specs that 4K can offer (HDR and wider gamut) you would have to spend at least $2000 and it may be hard to find one then.

The ones you linked to would mean paying a premium for 4K where 4K only has the benefit of an increased resolution.

If the OP is looking at a TV that is 1080P and one that is 4K, but everything else is equal, just get the 1080P if cheaper.

The samsung "SUHD" are their only sets that are future proof, and not even that far into the future. 4K blu-ray will be out soon.

 

[zarf2007]

Actually the J series samsungs I posted links to have HDR and maybe even support H265 & VP9

 

[zarf2007]

Also saying that it's only a resolution bump that you won't tell the difference on clearly shows you have not viewed 4K broadcast content like BT UHD (not compressed crap like Netflix), if you had you would realise how wrong you are.

 

[zarf2007]

As I said above, as long as the OP knows he is buying an outdated 4K set then sure. Otherwise, I would just wait.

How is it outdated when most early adopters have these and new tech like 4K blu ray will be backwardly compatible anyway. Get a descent 4K source (like BT UHD) and you will see the difference between 1080p and 4K

 

[mattopotamus]

Also saying that it's only a resolution bump that you won't tell the difference on clearly shows you have not viewed 4K broadcast content like BT UHD (not compressed crap like Netflix), if you had you would realise how wrong you are.

I own a 4k set

 

[zarf2007]

I own a 4k set

So do I, but do you have a decent 4K source like BT UHD? because if you did you wouldnt be making statements that you can't see any improvement from 1080p, either that or you are blind.

and as I said, the first TV link I posted has HDR enabled with a software update:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1441629019

 

[mattopotamus]

So do I, but do you have a decent 4K source like BT UHD? because if you did you wouldnt be making statements that you can't see any improvement from 1080p, either that or you are blind.

and as I said, the first TV link I posted has HDR enabled with a software update:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1441629019

I won't argue with you how unimportant a resolution increase is to Picture Quality (it is probably the least important aspect). Please do not count "demo" material as how local 4K content will look. The same way demo blu-ray looks way different from actual blu-ray content.

I stand corrected on that particular TV. If it does support HDR that is a massive deal, and it will actually matter. I was just trying to warn the OP to not cheap out on a 4K set and make sure it really has the specs 4K blu-ray will support. There are tons of 13', 14', and early 15' sets that are strictly a resolution increase.

 

[Ray2]

We just went through this and settled on 1080. Did not want 3D and we have no content to drive 4K nor any plans to obtain it.

We have a few friends with 4K (who are quite disappointed with it) and initially started looking at them. Once we did side by side (same content) with 1080 we noticed up-scaling on SD content was not up to the task and smearing was more prevalent.

No idea if our very limited testing applies to the whole of 4K. My advice would be make sure you know why you want it. If you have a Nikon D800 or drive the TV from an HTPC, it may make sense. If you're going to plug it into a cable box, you're probably wasting your money.

 

[Blujelly]

We just went through this and settled on 1080. Did not want 3D and we have no content to drive 4K nor any plans to obtain it.

We have a few friends with 4K (who are quite disappointed with it) and initially started looking at them. Once we did side by side (same content) with 1080 we noticed up-scaling on SD content was not up to the task and smearing was more prevalent.

No idea if our very limited testing applies to the whole of 4K. My advice would be make sure you know why you want it. If you have a Nikon D800 or drive the TV from an HTPC, it may make sense. If you're going to plug it into a cable box, you're probably wasting your money.

more of process of just thinking a small investment for the future of tech really.

 

[zarf2007]

We just went through this and settled on 1080. Did not want 3D and we have no content to drive 4K nor any plans to obtain it.

We have a few friends with 4K (who are quite disappointed with it) and initially started looking at them. Once we did side by side (same content) with 1080 we noticed up-scaling on SD content was not up to the task and smearing was more prevalent.

No idea if our very limited testing applies to the whole of 4K. My advice would be make sure you know why you want it. If you have a Nikon D800 or drive the TV from an HTPC, it may make sense. If you're going to plug it into a cable box, you're probably wasting your money.

Again, if you have seen the sport on the BT UHD channel you would be experiencing true UHD, the type that needs 40Mbps bandwidth and is not ruined by compression. Given the cost of the tv I posted with HDR I think it foolish to go with 1080p.

 

[mattopotamus]

Again, if you have seen the sport on the BT UHD channel you would be experiencing true UHD, the type that needs 40Mbps bandwidth and is not ruined by compression. Given the cost of the tv I posted with HDR I think it foolish to go with 1080p.

That is a DEMO, and real content will not look like that...at least nothing you will get live in the near future. All 4K streams are compressed, no matter the source.

 

[zarf2007]

I won't argue with you how unimportant a resolution increase is to Picture Quality (it is probably the least important aspect). Please do not count "demo" material as how local 4K content will look. The same way demo blu-ray looks way different from actual blu-ray content.

I stand corrected on that particular TV. If it does support HDR that is a massive deal, and it will actually matter. I was just trying to warn the OP to not cheap out on a 4K set and make sure it really has the specs 4K blu-ray will support. There are tons of 13', 14', and early 15' sets that are strictly a resolution increase.

Don't really know if you are deliberately ignoring what I say or misunderstanding so I will repeat. Please view the live sporting events on the BT UHD channel on a 4K set then compare to 1080p, or you could just smear Vaseline on your TV screen, the effect is that obvious. HDR will only improve on that.

 

[zarf2007]

That is a DEMO, and real content will not look like that...at least nothing you will get live in the near future. All 4K streams are compressed, no matter the source.

It is not a demo, of course there will be some compression but nowhere near as much as netflix 4k. but anyway, i bored arguing with you.