View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Sun May 04, 2025 3:22 pm
4K TV sets are a con. Aren't they?
Author |
Message |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|
Gonna be buying a TV reasonably soon, thinking 55" minimum on the chimney breast, me sitting maybe 10 foot away... 4K isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference there, is it?
Bearing in mind I won't be forking out for 4K content in any way shape or form, and HD-HDR upscaling will likely suck balls... I then don't need 4K and it will likely make broadcasts look sh1te, correct? I'm not even the gamer I used to be lol.
I know how that reads, and I'm 99% certain it's the usual con... just wanna be certain I'm not missing out!
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:01 pm |
|
 |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
It seems pretty pointless to me too - for much the same reason. I’m told every now and then that the TV we have is too big (36 inch screen IIRC), and at viewing distance, that’s all you need. Anything else is wasted pixels. What 4K will give you is a better display at bigger sizes further away, so I expect a small private cinema could work on 4K displays.
I can see a benefit for 4K on computer displays - where lines are no longer perceived as pixels. This is heading towards resolution independent displays, and your screen will be as sharp (if not sharper) than a high-spec printed page.
Don’t forget, this is the current pi$$ing contest. It’ll be 8K in a year or so.
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:00 pm |
|
 |
steve74
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:43 pm Posts: 1798 Location: Manchester
|
I came to the same conclusion recently when buying a new TV, though mine was a bit smaller so that made my mind up for me really. I believe both Netflix and Amazon are planning 4K streaming and if you don't have Sky Q then you don't really need 4K unless you plan on keeping the set beyond a few years
_________________ * Steve *
* Witty statement goes here *
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:05 pm |
|
 |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|

There's a graph somewheee that shows the relationship between screen size, different resolutions and how far you have to sit before you notice a difference. Actually just found it: https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-ful ... uide.10704Additionally, look at what you watch. If you watch a lot of HD/stuff that's available in 4K, it'll be worth it. If, like me, you still watch stuff in SD (eg freeview) then not worth it. I'm also looking at a new TV but our house is relatively small and anything larger than 42-43" just won't fit unless we mount it above the fireplace. I've always hated having to look up to see a screen - I think it puts extra strain on your neck. I firmly believe the top of the TV should be below your eyeline when sitting, so you're looking downwards. Same reason why I used to sit at the back in lectures, and why i sit at the back in the cinema. I'd recommend cutting out a bit of cardboard to the same dimensions as the sort of TV you want to get an idea of what's a suitable size. With all of the 65+ inch screens, 55" looks quite small and 42 " is tiny when in showrooms.
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:15 pm |
|
 |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
A TV should be at eyeliner or just lower. I have no idea why people mount their TVs so high up the wall - but you see that done so much. Also, do yourself a favour and calibrate your screen when you get it. They come out of the factory with the blue cranked right up, and sharpness maxed out, because nothing says HD like an over blue image with added noise caused by sharpening! I calibrated my set when I bought it, and I’ve had people ask how my TV has such a natural “photographic” quality to it. I see sets in showrooms, and they make my eyes water. Dreadful. Also, a 36 inch screen will seem quite small in s show room, but get it home and it takes over a whole wall.
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:41 pm |
|
 |
andytw
Has a life
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:41 pm Posts: 54
|
Both Netflix and Amazon already offer 4K content (I've been enjoying Amazon's "The Grand Tour" in 4K recently and other content is available at that resolution). Whether you need 4K has already been discussed and is dependant on a number of factors, but if the cost (and technology) is similar then a 4K TV would not normally look worse at the same viewing distance than an equivalent Full HD set and will offer some future proofing.
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:57 pm |
|
 |
Spreadie
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm Posts: 6355 Location: IoW
|
Interesting. So, at the distance my TV is away from where I sit, to make 4k worthwhile, I'd need to go for a 65-70" screen. That's just vulgar. 1080p is fine by me.
_________________ Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:07 pm |
|
 |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|
This is an excellent idea, and I did something similar when I decided to buy a smartphone. I couldn't decide whether to go for a standard or compact version and so made models with cardboard, tape and coins [for weight] to help me decide on what would fit in my pocket comfortably. Not a perfect method when it comes to usability for example, but it helped.
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:24 pm |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|

 |  |  |  | cloaked_wolf wrote: There's a graph somewheee that shows the relationship between screen size, different resolutions and how far you have to sit before you notice a difference. Actually just found it: https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-ful ... uide.10704Additionally, look at what you watch. If you watch a lot of HD/stuff that's available in 4K, it'll be worth it. If, like me, you still watch stuff in SD (eg freeview) then not worth it. I'm also looking at a new TV but our house is relatively small and anything larger than 42-43" just won't fit unless we mount it above the fireplace. I've always hated having to look up to see a screen - I think it puts extra strain on your neck. I firmly believe the top of the TV should be below your eyeline when sitting, so you're looking downwards. Same reason why I used to sit at the back in lectures, and why i sit at the back in the cinema. I'd recommend cutting out a bit of cardboard to the same dimensions as the sort of TV you want to get an idea of what's a suitable size. With all of the 65+ inch screens, 55" looks quite small and 42 " is tiny when in showrooms. |  |  |  |  |
Thanks for the link, most useful! My pre-bought TV wall mount actually has a cardboard ruler for measuring and perception. Further measurements are required no matter what I do, but I also don't want the TV up near the ceiling...
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:52 pm |
|
 |
big_D
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm Posts: 10691 Location: Bramsche
|

Amazon has a lot of UHD content. A lot of its in-house series are filmed in UHD and a growing number of other series are available in UHD. There are also a growing number of films available in UHD on Amazon Prime. The UHD film prices, for those not in Prime, are pretty obscene (29.99€).
I wasn't really looking for 4K, but ended up with a 49" 4K UHD set. We sit about 3M from the set and there is a noticeable difference between HD and UHD HDR content (in fact the Dune Buggies episodes of the Grand Tour were at times too sharp and looked unrealistic). The Sony is better than the Samsung I looked at, when it comes to SD TV. The Samsung was full of lines and looked really bad, which is why I bought the HD+ card for the TV, so that I could get the HD versions of the free-to-air channels (60€ a year, just to get the free content in HD!). But the Sony does in fact do a reasonable job with SD content, it is watchable, if a little soft. That said, I haven't tried to play a DVD on it yet.
My FireTV is older, so only does HD, but the Sony has Android and the AmazonPrime App does UHD. It also has Netflix and Google Play built in and can stream those in UHD, so if you have content/subscriptions with the main streaming services, you can get stuff in UHD - with Amazon, UHD versions of in-house series and some Prime series and films are included in the Prime subscription, so if your broadband is fast enough, there is nothing stopping you watching UHD content.
That said, we watch HD most of the time (licence fee channels, plus free-to-air commercial channels) and the quality is generally excellen.
_________________ "Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari
Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246
|
Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:29 am |
|
 |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|
Thanks to a tip from pcernie a while back, I got hold of a calibration software dvd that I really should get round to using on my 32" 1080p screen.
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:53 am |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
I hope to replace my TV some time (once my job situation is sorted out)
I will probably get around the 50" mark and will get a 4K TV as I will keep it for some time and might as well future proof as much as possible
|
Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:23 pm |
|
 |
davrosG5
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am Posts: 6954 Location: Peebo
|
I've had the odd look at tellies recently as mine is getting on a bit and I came to the conclusion that most decent screens now have got such small bezels that a 48 - 50" new screen will not be much bigger in terms of overall footprint than my current 40". 
_________________ When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum. -Billy Connolly (to a heckler)
|
Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:44 pm |
|
 |
big_D
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm Posts: 10691 Location: Bramsche
|
It also makes it a pain in the rear to get them out of the packaging. They write, that you shouldn't touch the screen itself, but there is practically no frame, so what are you supposed to get hold of to lift the 20 or so Kg out of the packaging? 
_________________ "Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari
Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246
|
Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:43 am |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
|
Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:29 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|