Are there benefits to having 4K TV when it is only going to be connected to a house aerial and not Sky / Virgin etc?
In other words, will just be used on Freeview channels and playing DVDs?
|
No - but they are much cheaper now and so future proof.
I'd prefer the best HD TV at a price point than a bottom of the pile UHD. The SmartTV functions might swing it one way or another.
Remember DVDs are 576i and UTV us 2160P so the TV is guessing a lot of detail or simply showing a group of pixels to represent one of the native pixels.
I use the term UHD (or actually UHD-1) because we are pedantic on here and it's not a 4K horizontal resolution. It's actually 3840 x 2160. The DCI 4K resolution standard has a resolution of 4096 × 2160 pixels
|
Even if connected to a Sky+ HD box it's not getting a native resolution feed. Little on SkyQ is UHD-1 either and it all costs.
Best bet is a UHD BluRay player or some content on Netflix or Amazon (Prime) Video.
|
UHD, UTV, 576i and 2160P.
Que?
|
|
Its like Beta max on a BASF tape.....
|
>> Its like Beta max on a BASF tape.....
Would that be compatible with a video 2000 machine?
|
>> Que?
I'll try to explain. But to be sure - Basil never went in the ratatouille. That was Basil Fawlty's fault to confuse guests and his waiter.
DVD in the UK is using PAL and therefore the resolution in limited to 576 interlaced (576i). That's the vertical resolution and it's interlaced. Full HD is known as 1080P so has 1080 vertical lines and is progressive scan (hence the P) and horizontally is 1920. So like most popular (cheap) displays we have 1920x1080 which we hall full HD.
Step up to Ultra HD-1 and we quadruple it. So it's 3840x2160. A lot of data needed to render at even 30FPS. So if you watch even full HD the screen is either quadrupling up on pixel or guessing content.
The bandwidth needed for an UHD-1 film is beyond some broadband connections.
|
>>
>> I'd prefer the best HD TV at a price point than a bottom of the
>> pile UHD. The SmartTV functions might swing it one way or another.
>>
+1
I set up a cheapo 4K 50 inch (ish) 'Philips' for Spamette Major, and the picture is flippin' 'orrible - to my eyes. She's quite happy with it.
If I had any interest in TVs I'd be waiting a year or two to see if the price of a 1080p OLED drops, or mabne they'll just disappear like plasma.
|
>> Are there benefits to having 4K TV when it is only going to be connected
>> to a house aerial and not Sky / Virgin etc?
>> In other words, will just be used on Freeview channels and playing DVDs?
Upgrading to 4k wont make Scottish football look any less ugly. Yu'll be wasting your money.
|
Especially if you watch your football feed on an illegal/free Internet feed. If you pay the likes of Sky for UHD/4K sport then you'll see a lot more detail so:
- Advertising boards are clearer
- You might see some high definition images for grass, faces, someone in crowd etc.
If you're concentrating on fast moving football action then why bother with a UHD-1 feed? But you might not see a latest tattoo or hair implant in so much detail on regular HD.
|
>>Are there benefits to having 4K TV when it is only going to be connected to a house aerial
No.
Also, you're at the expensive leading edge, the trailing edge is always more reliable and generally cheaper. Why take the risk for zero gain?
The number is how many "lines" of pixels. "i" or "p" is whether they are replaced alternately per refresh (the first time odd number ed rows the second time even numbered rows) or progressively (every line, every refresh)
"p" always better, but much more of a strain on the TV and greater requirements for bandwidth.
If you have two rooms with a television, you are far better to maintain the same resolution than to have one so much higher resolution than the other.
Of usually far more relevance is refresh rate.
If you like to look at a picture of a field of poppies, resolution will be very important, but refresh rate not so much, because not much is happening.
If you like to watch very fast motorbikes, then resolution is not so important, but being able to track a fast moving object is. you might notice missing resolution, but you'll damn soon notice a stuttering picture.
To all intents and purposes the best quality you can see is the lower of what your television is capable of against what is being fed to it.
Future protection is futile and by and large impossible. Buy what you want for now, worry about tomorrow when it comes.
In any case, far too much is made of this stuff. You can only tell the difference if you're used to one and you suddenly switch to another. Or you have both and side by side. Even then, you'll forget in a day.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 9 Dec 16 at 00:12
|
>> In any case, far too much is made of this stuff. Y
At the moment I'm holding off for UHD-1 3D HDR TV content ;-) I won't bother otherwise.
Seriously 4k TV is currently the new 3D TV. Heck even my phone has a resolution of 2560x1440 and I feel a need to upgrade to 3840x2160 because it looks a bit pixelated when I put it under a magnifying glass. All jagged it is. :-)
|
>> Of usually far more relevance is refresh rate.
>>
>> If you like to look at a picture of a field of poppies, resolution will
>> be very important, but refresh rate not so much, because not much is happening.
>>
>> If you like to watch very fast motorbikes, then resolution is not so important, but
>> being able to track a fast moving object is. you might notice missing resolution, but
>> you'll damn soon notice a stuttering picture.
>>
>> To all intents and purposes the best quality you can see is the lower of
>> what your television is capable of against what is being fed to it.
Absolutely agree with this.
I would also add that image quality is almost impossible to gain from spec, as it depends very heavily on the image processing circuitry and algorithms used. You may well find the LCD panels used across several manufacturers products come off the same production line, and certainly you will have the same panel fitted to multiple models from a single manufacturer at wildly differing price points. The difference is in the image processing, and it really does affect the picture quality and the way the TV handles things like motion very dramatically.
It's a bit like the ZF8 auto box you find in a Jaguar, a Land Rover or a BMW. Same hardware pretty much across the board, but the control systems used by each manufacturer and application are very different, which gives noticeably different end results.
As with any piece of AV equipment, an audition is time very well spent, and never buy "blind".
Last edited by: DP on Fri 9 Dec 16 at 13:24
|
I know nothing, Mr Fawlty. But:
" ... 4K video sources are still few and between, which means most of us will be watching content in good, old-fashioned "regular" high-def: 1,920x1,080 (1080i or 1080p) or 1,280x720 (720p), both of which have far fewer pixels than 4K.
Since that'll be the case for many years to come, how much would a 4K TV actually improve the picture?
The short answer is that a 4K TV could improve the picture a bit in the best cases -- but don't expect miracles. Most 4K TVs use a process called upconverting (or upscaling) to convert incoming sources to fit their 4K screens. Done right, it can add to the perceived detail of the image, but you'll have to look pretty hard, and sit pretty close, to see the difference.
What follows is the longer answer why. ... "
www.cnet.com/uk/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 9 Dec 16 at 14:18
|
Basically unconverting can smooth jaggies where the algorithm decides a smooth edge is intended. But the process cannot add any detail where the information is not present in the source. Jaggies apart, it can only remove information or leave it alone.
If you can't see jaggies anyway from your usual viewing position then I would expect it to be a waste of money. In fact if the extra processing results in poorer motion flow then you might be worse off.
Should 4K source ever become 'standard' then the sets will be both cheaper and better than they are now.
I should say I haven't looked at any to test my opinion, because I am more than happy with the full HD 43" I have.
The pictures are better on the wireless anyway, although I don't suppose that applies to fitbal.
|
My current 37" Toshiba was purchased in 2006, HD Ready. If I go down the UHD Smart TV route, it will be a flat screen 55", either Samsung or Panasonic.
But, in order to realise the potential of the TV, I shall have to subscribe to a pay to view package... At the moment everything comes through the aerial free to view. I am an avid film watcher, and ( apologies) cannot remember what I was advised to subscribe to. I don't have cable, don't watch much sport, but enjoyed stuff like BBad & Lillehammer on Netflix when staying with overseas friends.
Did somebody recommend Amazon Prime as well as Netflix?
|
|
We have a Samsung Smart TV, and I have to say the picture quality when watching streamed stuff like Amazon Prime is superb and makes other sources (via cabled Virgin box in our case) look very primitive.
|
|
Now that surprises me, as I have Virgin and we don't bother watching or more importantly (for disk space) recording much on HD cos (usually) the picture quality on the terrestrial channels is almost as good.
|
|
What's the point of paying £100's for a fancy telly when any picture is only as good as your eyes allow? ;-)
|
|
The worse your eyesight the bigger the TV you need.
|
Smokie, we just changed from our long-used Virgin V+ box to a Tivo (very reluctantly).
I'd agree the V+ had a really good picture when viewing SD, sufficient to be comparable to HD. But the Tivo isn't anything like as good - bit smeary and blurry even on HD channels, never mind SD ones.
Which box do you have?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 15 Dec 16 at 15:39
|
I have 2 TiVos - 1 x 1Tb and 1 x 500mb. Maybe that's the point - maybe the HD simply isn't that good rather than the SD being excellent... but for sure you can see a difference, just not enough to justify using up the extra recording space for HD (I barely watch anything live).
The TV is up to it, it's a LG smart TV, last year's model I think.
|
|
Just seen details of LG 49UK770 LED HDR Super 4K "with Harman Kardon Sound". I'd never come across this sound system in a TV before. Can I take it that it gives better results than normal but less good than a sound bar?
|
Harman Katdon is now owned by Samsung.
Samsung also own Bang & Olufsen car ICE
|
Harman Kardon purchased the car audio business of Bang & Olufsen. Harman Kardon also own Becker, Infinity, JBL, Mark Levinson Audio Systems amongst others.
And as you say Samsung is in the process of purchasing Harman Kardon.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 19 Dec 16 at 16:20
|
>> Just seen details of LG 49UK770 LED HDR Super 4K "with Harman Kardon Sound"
>>etc.
To try and answer your question, it isn't a system, it's a brand, that of a one-time hi-fi manufacturer that has now been extended into ICE, PC speakers, etc.
Meant to imply presumably that the amplifier is a bit beefier/higher quality and that they have spent a bit more on the speakers than is usual with tellies, which wouldn't be difficult.
I've a £100 Sony soundbar (so basically a few pounds manufacturing cost) which is a long way from being any sort of hifi but it is incomparably better than listening to the [mid-range Sony 42"] TV's own sound.
TBH I'm not convinced that some of the £350 sound bars are much better, they just go a bit louder, but they do usually come with the 'sub' (as ours does) that lends them a bit of weight.
|
Some good readings.
gizmodo.com/a-skeptics-guide-to-buying-or-not-buying-a-4k-tv-1744272556
www.cnet.com/uk/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
Incidentally I bought a 55-inch LED HD (1920x1080) TV last weekend. It was an impulse buy so didn't do much research but happy with the product.
I don't get any premium channels - only using free Sky box.
However, watching YouTube HD videos via Fire TV stick was a better experience.
Enjoyment of watching something usually depends on quality of content rather than resolution.
Most examples of showing superiority of UHD/4K involves looking at bubbles in champagne chutes or bee collecting honey.
|
>> To try and answer your question, it isn't a system, it's a brand
Harman Kardon is indeed a brand - owned by Harman International Industries. A company founded by Harman and Kardon and which took over a number of other companies. Harman had bought out Kardon in the 50s... and when he served in the US government under Carter he sold it off. He then later started to buy much of it back and other companies after founding Harman International Industries.
Samsung is intending to purchase Harman International Industries and this is in the process of happening.
|
|
Harman Kardon hi-fi speakers were well respected in their hey day, but the company began to branch out into other areas including the production of "computer speakers". To be fair they did/perhaps still do sound a lot better than many rivals' offerings.
|
S'funny but after reading lots of reviews, and looking at TVs in several retailers last Friday, I finally decided what to buy.
After an awful few weeks with my canine companion, I knew it wouldn't cheer me up, but it was diversionary. Out of the blue an invite from my overseas friends to join them on a mini road trip in two weeks time, so decision made. No new telly. My old mum gets my existing 10yo 37" telly, I get her old 32" telly, I earn a few more Flying Blue miles, and get to sit nearer the tv. Funny old world.
Last edited by: legacylad on Sun 1 Jan 17 at 20:03
|
The wevver will do wonders for your hip, leglad. Once upon a time, long long ago, I got talking to a chap on one of my walks up in the hills above Los Cristianos.
He was there for a weeks holiday but found that the climate did wonders for his long-term back pain, so he decided to stay on for a few months.
He made a few shekels selling jewelry in the day time, and gave much of the money to the brewery come the evening. Did I ever tell you about his shenanigans with the women. Somebuddy's got to do it, he said.
Last edited by: Dog on Sun 1 Jan 17 at 20:33
|
Much as I enjoy walking in tenner iffy, and there is some great walking there, I'm heading a few miles West.
And it ain't Morecambe!
I'm checking out humidity levels now
|
>>Much as I enjoy walking in tenner iffy, and there is some great walking there, I'm heading a few miles West.
Um, I did realise that leglad - California? Best take it easy on that hip of yours.
|
I donated my 10yo 37" Toshiba to my old mum and now use her 32" elderly Samsung. The first few times watching it seemed strange, but I've moved closer to it and I've adapted!
Richer Sounds tell me that new models are released in April/May so maybe I'll buy a replacement then, and ask if any friends are upgrading and buy their old set.
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 2 Feb 17 at 08:55
|
4k TVs - rtj70
