4k tv

#27
#27
Sandvol said:
If you want to spend that kind of money for three shows go ahead. I'll wait until about 50% of the content is 4K.
Click to expand...

Much more than 3 shows and also you can get movies off Amazon Prime as well. The price for 4K's is pretty affordable now and far from a useless technology to have in a TV right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
BearCat204 said:
Much more than 3 shows and also you can get movies off Amazon Prime as well. The price for 4K's is pretty affordable now and far from a useless technology to have in a TV right now.
Click to expand...

Didn't say useless. Said pointless. I waited until 50% of content was HD before I bought HD. Usually by then the sets are better too.
 
#29
#29
Sandvol said:
Didn't say useless. Said pointless. I waited until 50% of content was HD before I bought HD. Usually by then the sets are better too.
Click to expand...

We differ then because I jump on things rather quickly I suppose. And useless is basically = pointless, but semantics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#31
#31
BearCat204 said:
We differ then because I jump on things rather quickly I suppose. And useless is basically = pointless, but semantics.
Click to expand...

I just think what he's saying (and I agree) is that we're starting to broach order of diminishing returns territory with 4K. Going from 4:3 aspect ratio, standard 480i definition to 16:9 aspect ratio, 1080p high definition was a quantum leap in TV display technology and completely justifiable. We had the former as a standard for a very long sustained amount of time. Now it seems that instead of picking a standard and sticking with it, the industry is trying to take the cell phone approach when it comes to TV's by adopting these ridiculously incremental "advances" like 4K in order to pressure consumers into feeling like their current TV's are suddenly obsolete and they must upgrade. The jump from 1080p to 4K is completely superfluous and not needed.

Now the industry is rapidly moving toward the development of 8K displays which is even MORE obsurd and MORE superfluous than 4K!
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
Brave Volunteer said:
I just think what he's saying (and I agree) is that we're starting to broach order of diminishing returns territory with 4K. Going from 4:3 aspect ratio, standard 480i definition to 16:9 aspect ratio, 1080p high definition was a quantum leap in TV display technology and completely justifiable. We had the former as a standard for a very long sustained amount of time. Now it seems that instead of picking a standard and sticking with it, the industry is trying to take the cell phone approach when it comes to TV's by adopting these ridiculously incremental "advances" like 4K in order to pressure consumers into feeling like their current TV's are suddenly obsolete and they must upgrade. The jump from 1080p to 4K is completely superfluous and not needed.

Now the industry is rapidly moving toward the development of 8K displays which is even MORE obsurd and MORE superfluous than 4K!
Click to expand...

I agree. It's a bit silly. Back in the day a television was like an appliance that only needed to be replaced/upgraded every 10-12 years. Now the manufacturers want you to upgrade every 3-4 by slapping on under developed gimmicks like 3D or Smart TVs that underperform compared to adding a roku/appleTV/chromecast.

I'm not saying 4k isn't viable display tech. I would love one as a computer monitor for zooming in during photo editing and design work. Granted that's a personal want/need.

However, as a media consumption device, right now content is so limited it's not worth an unnecessary upgrade if you are not already looking for a TV. Even then it's only worth it if you can get it for the same price as a standard HD television.
 
#34
#34
burntorangeVOLffle said:
I agree. It's a bit silly. Back in the day a television was like an appliance that only needed to be replaced/upgraded every 10-12 years. Now the manufacturers want you to upgrade every 3-4 by slapping on under developed gimmicks like 3D or Smart TVs that underperform compared to adding a roku/appleTV/chromecast.

I'm not saying 4k isn't viable display tech. I would love one as a computer monitor for zooming in during photo editing and design work. Granted that's a personal want/need.

However, as a media consumption device, right now content is so limited it's not worth an unnecessary upgrade if you are not already looking for a TV. Even then it's only worth it if you can get it for the same price as a standard HD television.
Click to expand...

Not to mention factoring in screen size/viewing distance to even benefit from 4K.

Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg


4K Calculator - Do You Benefit? - Reference Home Theater

Plus there are SO many other factors that go into what makes an excellent TV picture besides resolution. There's color saturation/accuracy, black levels, contrast ratio, motion resolution, off screen viewing, light consistency, etc. Right now I'd take the new LG 1080p OLED TV over any 4K set on the market.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
5k screens are beautiful. Love the new Apple screens.

If people are buying a set now days, 4k isn't the worst choice you could make. It's somewhat future-proofing yourself if you buy a true 4k set (lots of gimmicky 4k tricks the last year or two in the first round of sets). I wouldn't rush out to replace any nice 1080p sets I currently have running, though.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
Again...stuff has been shot in 4k and 6k for a pretty long while. So netflix shooting in 4k doesn't surprise at all. I would say 90% of everything that comes thru our door was shot on 4k, but delivery is never in 4k.
 
#38
#38
Love my 4k TV. Just wish more stuff was available. Or even if more 1080p was available.

ESPN still broadcasts in 720.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top