# Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Choosing Between HD and UHD



## DavidHir

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.


100% agreed.


----------



## Leary

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Should you get an HD or UHD display for your home theater? There are several things to consider before making this important decision.
> 
> 1. HD has a pixel resolution of 1920x1080, while UHD (also commonly but inaccurately known as 4K) quadruples the resolution to 3840x2160, but that additional resolution does not offer much visible benefit at typical screen sizes and seating distances.
> 
> 2. UHD will offer several other enhancements, including high dynamic range (HDR), wider color gamut (WCG), and high frame rate (HFR), but the details are still being worked out. These enhancements will have a much greater impact on image quality than increased resolution.
> 
> 3. There are several HDR systems vying for acceptance by display manufacturers and content creators, including SMPTE (the only one that's an open industry standard), Dolby Vision, Philips, Technicolor, and BBC.
> 
> 4. The only currently available consumer displays with HDR and WCG capabilities are the Samsung SUHD TVs, which implement the SMPTE HDR standard; the Vizio Reference Series will offer WCG and Dolby Vision HDR when it is released, presumably later this year. Also, the Panasonic CX850 and Sony X940C LCDs and LG EG9600 OLED are scheduled to get firmware updates that add HDR capabilities—at least for streaming content—this year.
> 
> 5. There is currently no consumer content with HDR, WCG, or HFR; Disney and Pixar have created HDR/WCG content for commercial cinema using Dolby Vision, and Fox has announced it will produce HDR content for the home market.
> 
> 6. Streaming services Amazon, M-Go, Netflix, and Vudu have announced plans to provide HDR content this year, but they could use different HDR systems. Will HDR-capable displays be able to decode multiple types of HDR signals? We don't know yet.
> 
> 7. The only way to stream UHD content at this point is via the display's built-in apps or the Sony FMP-X10 UHD server; a Roku UHD streaming box is under development.
> 
> 8. Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs will support the SMPTE, Dolby Vision, and Philips HDR systems as well as WCG when they—and the players needed to play them—start shipping by the end of this year. Those players should also support UHD streaming, presumably with HDR and WCG if available.
> 
> 9. Many people argue that a UHDTV can make HD look much better than it does on an HDTV, but that depends on the quality of the display's upscaler, and many others maintain that the increased resolution by itself does not improve the picture quality very much at typical screen sizes and seating distances.
> 
> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.
> 
> Like AVS Forum on Facebook
> Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
> +1 AVS Forum on Google+


What is the current and future prospects for projectors?


----------



## slarity

I sit 10.5ft from a 110" 1080p projection setup. I am ready for 4k but will wait until the standards are figured out and I can buy a nice 4k projector under $4k.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

Leary said:


> What is the current and future prospects for projectors?


Unknown at this time, but it seems to me that projectors are lagging behind flat panels in terms of resolution, HDR, WCG, etc. Yes, there are a few projectors with 4K resolution, but not nearly as many as the number of flat panels. And I don't know of any imminently available projectors with the other attributes. Maybe we'll see some at CEDIA; I hope so!


----------



## Garman

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Unknown at this time, but it seems to me that projectors are lagging behind flat panels in terms of resolution, HDR, WCG, etc. Yes, there are a few projectors with 4K resolution, but not nearly as many as the number of flat panels. And I don't know of any imminently available projectors with the other attributes. Maybe we'll see some at CEDIA; I hope so!


They are definitely lagging but remember most consumers just jumped on board with HD, going from 720p to 1080p sets, until most of them quit working or die out, I can't see buying one. Every set I have with the exception of my LCD in kitchen is 1080p, and I have many sets, unless one dies I don't plan on replacing any of them. Now on my projector in my HT, that I could see trading up to a new system but prices are not good yet. As far as the huge flat panels, no thanks to me, been down that road and even though they are flat, much harder to get rid of and replace when you want too, I will stick with another good 4K projector like a Sony/JVC or Epson. Currently have a Sony BRAVIA VPL-VW85 that has been ISF calibrated so I am good for about another year or two..  Unless I get a great trade in, as this has low hours..


----------



## Brian Hampton

I didn't realize so many details have to sorted. 

I recently bought 1080p projector and I'm sure my next be will likely be 4k. I think waiting five years to buy is a great plan for now.


----------



## pittsoccer33

For me its about waiting for the content. Format war aside, when did we really start getting a lot of bluray catalog releases? 2010? so the format had been out for a few years at that point. that was plenty of time for 1080p tvs to become more mainstream and affordable, as well as getting the feature sets worked out (stuff like # of hdmi ports)


----------



## steve1971

Thank's Scott for clearing some of this up for me. Its because of your article that I am going to be waiting for the forseeable future to get into 4K and even then I dont know if I will be jumping on the ship. I'm going to be keeping a watchful eye on OLED though and see how that all pans out. Until then my Sony 55W900A suits my needs just fine.


----------



## jimv1983

I'm curious if HDR content would make any noticeable difference in PQ vs non-HDR content on a non-HDR display. Obviously you wouldn't get the full benefit since the display doesn't support the technology but since the content is better I could see it making some difference.

I remember when I got my first DVR from Comcast. It was an HD box but I didn't have an HDTV yet but I noticed that the HD channels always looked better than the SD channels even on a SD TV. Obviously I didn't get full 720p resolution but it still looked better. Would HDR content on a non-HDR display have a similar effect?


----------



## torii

not buying a 4k tv until my cable provider has content for me to watch.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

jimv1983 said:


> I'm curious if HDR content would make any noticeable difference in PQ vs non-HDR content on a non-HDR display. Obviously you wouldn't get the full benefit since the display doesn't support the technology but since the content is better I could see it making some difference.
> 
> I remember when I got my first DVR from Comcast. It was an HD box but I didn't have an HDTV yet but I noticed that the HD channels always looked better than the SD channels even on a SD TV. Obviously I didn't get full 720p resolution but it still looked better. Would HDR content on a non-HDR display have a similar effect?


I think you mean will HDR content make a noticeable difference in PQ versus the same HDR content on a non-HDR display. It's not clear, but your analogy to resolution, while a reasonable thought, is not entirely apt. With resolution, you're right that starting with more and scaling it down generally does make a noticeable improvement compared with the same content that started at the lower resolution to begin with. But dynamic range is different, and what happens when you play HDR content on a non-HDR display depends on the HDR system.

For example, Dolby Vision is a two-layer system with SDR in the base layer and HDR metadata in the enhancement layer, so it is backward-compatible with SDR displays. In that case, I wouldn't expect to see a big improvement on an SDR display, since the HDR metadata is simply ignored. 

On the other hand, SMPTE is a single-layer system. In a separate thread, AVS member ray0414 documents his attempt to play the Samsung-provided HDR clips from Life of Pi and Exodus on his 2014 Samsung HU9000 before he got the One Connect Box that upgrades it to HDR, and he found the picture to look very washed out; after the upgrade, it looked way better than even high-quality SDR content.


----------



## boguspomp

I got a UHD PC Samsung monitor a while ago, which also claims to have a higher standard than the 709. I can only say that pictures look breathtaking on the screen. Since I have the screen (and my reading glasses) I can read the smallest possible print without a problem. Even a letter size of 4 is still smooth. For TV I will wait like everybody else; for computer work I have to recommend to everyone to consider a nice 29-32 inch UHD monitor right now.

cheers


----------



## R Harkness

There is something ironic, or perhaps counterproductive, isn't there, in an AV-site recommending AV-enthusiasts hold back on adopting a new format?

By that I mean: the people *most interested in jumping to a higher quality format should be US.* And if WE are going to council each other to not take the leap, who will? We'd be the ones most appreciating the change, but would be contributing to the slow...or non...adoption of the technology needed to make the change.

Not that I actually disagree with Scott's recommendation. I'm just musing on the implications....

(I guess it sort of reminds me of how weirdly often I see on AV-enthusiast sites when a new technological or format change is offered "No way, not this time. I parted with my money to upgrade the last time, you aren't going to get my money THIS TIME!" At which point I wonder what such folks are actually doing on an AV-enthusiast site).


----------



## jakmal

Scott Wilkinson said:


> ...
> 7. The only way to stream UHD content at this point is via the display's built-in apps or the Sony FMP-X10 UHD server; a Roku UHD streaming box is under development.
> ...


Scott, Thanks for itemizing the various aspects. While the comments about HDR and the 'non-readiness' of 4K displays for the average consumer hit the nail on the head, the item quoted above is not true.

The NVIDIA Shield Console that I reviewed recently supports streaming of Netflix UHD content on a HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 display. Proof is in the screen grab here:

http://anandtech.com/show/9289/the-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review/7

Roku is not the only game in town for OTT streaming 

Another aspect that I would add to the above list is to choose a display which covers as much of the BT.2020 color gamut as possible. Current display technology doesn't allow for any display to cover 100% of that, but, TVs based on quantum-dot technology can cover upwards of 90% of the BT.2020 color gamut. Displays covering a wider color gamut will lead to a richer experience with the upcoming UHD Blu-ray content.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

torii said:


> not buying a 4k tv until my cable provider has content for me to watch.


You will be waiting for a long time.

Disk and Streaming will be how 4k content gets distributed.

So no news or reality TV in 4K anytime soon.


----------



## xvfx

bootman_head_fi said:


> reality TV in 4K


----------



## javanpohl

In regards to resolution, I remember the same, exact arguments against 1080p when it first came around. Not necessarily in comparison to 480i/p but in comparison to 720p. And i was actually totally sold on that idea. I thought all these people flocking to the 1080 50" TVs were chumps. I was going to save a few hundred bucks by getting a 720p TV and laugh my way all the way to the bank, MWAHAHAHA!!! ... and then I saw a 1080p 50" TV sitting next to a 720P 50" tv (same brand and model level) from about 10" away. "Are those jaggies???" It was a no-brainer. Maybe there's a sitting distance where a person could actually not discern a difference between 1080p and UHD on a reasonably sized TV, but, as for all of these claims that "most of the time, you can't even tell the difference"--is complete and utter baloney. Granted, I apparently have really good vision (I can apparently still see further than my gf who just got lazik), so maybe I'm an exception.

Even taking all that into account, I'm actually not sold on the idea of a UHD TV. I'd be very interested to upgrade my projector in the near future though; however, that area oddly doesn't have much development. I mean, we're about to get PHONES (from TWO different companies) with UHD resolution and we still only have ONE company making UHD projectors??? It's absurd.


----------



## Lee Heytow

Comcast is realeasing a 4k box by year end - not such a long time. There will be a followup box next year with hdr.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 10. *Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.*


That *^* ... because we all know where early adopters ultimately leads to. ...No need to look any further than first generation plasma HDTVs (720p). 
...Or Dolby 3D new elevation sound. 

Or unless financial funds are unlimited; like earning interests from investments in the six digits every week. ...Then yes, go ahead, and keep up with the latest every six months or so.


----------



## zgeneral

slarity said:


> I sit 10.5ft from a 110" 1080p projection setup. I am ready for 4k but will wait until the standards are figured out and I can buy a nice 4k projector under $4k.


Therein lies the real benefit of 4K. Very few TV users benefit from it at all. Most are buying inferior sets and upscaling 1080P content. At least a project makes use of 4k though you have to spend a small fortune to do that.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

Lee Heytow said:


> Comcast is realeasing a 4k box by year end - not such a long time. There will be a followup box next year with hdr.



Yes it will upconvert their current HD offering from their content providers. (and have HDMI 2.0/2.2
They will have a 4K channel similar to what they did with 3D. 
Actually it is replacing that channel since no one watched it.

But don't expect their entire lineup to be native 4K. 
That isn't happening anytime soon.


----------



## friendly_jacek

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.


NOOOOOOOO!!!

now after i warmed up to the idea of upgrading from 720p to 4k (after those 12 years), you ask me to wait longer?

BTW, what happened to the 3D?


----------



## dchavez2401

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 1. HD has a pixel resolution of 1920x1080, while UHD (also commonly but inaccurately known as 4K) quadruples the resolution to 3840x2160, but that additional resolution *does not offer much visible benefit at typical screen sizes* and seating distances. (Of course, you can see a big difference at the "pixel-peeping" distance depicted above, b*ut few people actually sit that close to their TV*.)


can someone give me clarification on this statement. Im curious what size is ideal? I just want to make sure i didnt waste $2,000.lol
I bought the new LG 4k 3d tv 65 inch. I sit about 5-7 feet back I'm guessing?


----------



## mo949

Scott Wilkinson said:


> For example, Dolby Vision is a two-layer system with SDR in the base layer and HDR metadata in the enhancement layer, so it is backward-compatible with SDR displays. In that case, I wouldn't expect to see a big improvement on an SDR display, since the HDR metadata is simply ignored.
> 
> .


I don't think this makes any sense if the television you are displaying it on is a UHD SDR one. Wouldn't you still see the WCG, Increased detail from the bit depth? Tomorrowland's HDR master aught to look significantly better on a UHD tv in SDR than an HD TV in SDR, correct? Unless you are suggesting that the resolution, WCG, and increased detail does not qualify as a big improvement?


----------



## IanR

Scott .. tks for this. Are you also contemplating something similar for A/V receivers? I'm not sure how you'd organize the content .. or what the factors might be .. but support for HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 would be a couple of items. UHD Blu-Ray implications? Support for ATMOS/Auro/Dolby would be another. Also maybe a statement as to whether you would need support for HDR/WCG/etc .. or whether that stuff just 'passes through'. 
It's probably an easier discussion for a TV because it's a 'target device' .. whereas the receiver is in the middle of everything and has all the interoperability implications of not only the video stuff .. but also the audio.


----------



## rightintel

I've an 82" Mitsu DLP, and the lamp is now dimming a tad(it's also very deep in size/not aesthetically pleasing anymore). Since the 4K standards are still in flux, I'm considering buying a large 1080p smart display to hold me over for the next couple of years. Some solid suggestions would be really welcome(I use a Directv Genie system & Xbox One btw). Thanks guys...


----------



## Montucky

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Maybe we'll see some at CEDIA; I hope so!


Me too! I think projectors are where 4K can really make a lot of sense. Now if only we can get the prices down a bit more!


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

jakmal said:


> Scott, Thanks for itemizing the various aspects. While the comments about HDR and the 'non-readiness' of 4K displays for the average consumer hit the nail on the head, the item quoted above is not true.
> 
> The NVIDIA Shield Console that I reviewed recently supports streaming of Netflix UHD content on a HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 display. Proof is in the screen grab here:
> 
> http://anandtech.com/show/9289/the-nvidia-shield-android-tv-review/7
> 
> Roku is not the only game in town for OTT streaming
> 
> Another aspect that I would add to the above list is to choose a display which covers as much of the BT.2020 color gamut as possible. Current display technology doesn't allow for any display to cover 100% of that, but, TVs based on quantum-dot technology can cover upwards of 90% of the BT.2020 color gamut. Displays covering a wider color gamut will lead to a richer experience with the upcoming UHD Blu-ray content.


I didn't know about the Nvidia Shield; I updated the OP accordingly. Thanks!

The problem with current WCG displays is that there is no standardization; one TV will cover 90% of BT.2020, and another will cover 95%. And which 90 or 95% is it? Then there's the issue of how will the signal convey WCG info, and how will the TV or source device remap it if the display's color gamut is different than what is in the signal? These are as yet unanswered questions.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

mo949 said:


> I don't think this makes any sense if the television you are displaying it on is a UHD SDR one. Wouldn't you still see the WCG, Increased detail from the bit depth? Tomorrowland's HDR master aught to look significantly better on a UHD tv in SDR than an HD TV in SDR, correct? Unless you are suggesting that the resolution, WCG, and increased detail does not qualify as a big improvement?


Not necessarily; it all depends on what's in the signal and what the display can decode. For example, I saw Tomorrowland in both HDR and SDR; the SDR version looked considerably worse, and that was at the same resolution as the HDR version (4K). Granted, I don't know if Dolby Vision for commercial cinema works the same as it does for consumer TVs (that is, dual layer), but I would assume so. Also, I don't know if Disney released one DCP for both types of theaters, expecting the SDR projectors to ignore the HDR metadata, or if they did two separate DCPs graded accordingly. As I said in the OP and elsewhere, I believe that increased resolution offers the least amount of benefit comapred with 1080p. WCG offers more benefit compared with BT.709, but exactly how that will be conveyed and decoded remains an open question as far as I know.


----------



## Star56

dchavez2401 said:


> can someone give me clarification on this statement. Im curious what size is ideal? I just want to make sure i didnt waste $2,000.lol
> I bought the new LG 4k 3d tv 65 inch. I sit about 5-7 feet back I'm guessing?




That is a reasonable upgrade at that distance ( from a 65" 1080P set).


----------



## vondoom88

slarity said:


> I sit 10.5ft from a 110" 1080p projection setup. I am ready for 4k but will wait until the standards are figured out and I can buy a nice 4k projector under $4k.


This is where I'm at as well. Honestly it will take 4k projector under $4k , 4k media & a 4k player. To get me in the camp heck I still geek out at 1080p images on my projector.


----------



## dholmes54

How long should we wait every time something new comes out lately it lacks this that or something,I just ordered a vizio 65 in uhdtv.I'm just going to enjoy the TV,it looked excellent at Best Buy so i went for it,there's always something better around the corner,it never ends unless $$ is not a problem for you it is for me,and as far as the new blu-ray coming this fall I'll wait remember all the trouble when blu-ray came out! besides live today tommrow may not come (is that to negative?) I'm in my 60s!


----------



## FirstReflect

I am hopeful that a content delivery service such as Vidity (LINK: https://www.vidity.com/ ) will allow us to obtain full quality UltraHD content with lossless audio and special features without the need for physical media.
Of course, the price for individual movies is yet to be announced. And only three major studios have pledged support (Fox, Warner Bros., and Universal). But it's a start, and in my opinion, a nice idea.
I was very happy to see Kaleidescape making efforts to come down in price. And with the introduction of their own download store where customers could purchase full Blu-ray quality downloads, I really see that as the way forward. Kaleidescape is on board with Vidity, too. 


But it appears as though Vidity is targeted at the mass market since they are talking about having apps for smartphones and tablets and being able to use the service on a PC. With that being the case, I'm not exactly sure what Kaleidescape would offer in order to maintain their profit margins. But I really like this idea of full quality downloads. Streaming remains constricted to higher video compression and lossy audio. And I'm sorry to say it, but I really, really do not see the average consumer adopting a new disc format any time soon. The drop from DVD to Blu-ray was already large. The drop from Blu-ray to UltraHD Blu-ray will be even larger, I am guessing. For those of us who care about the highest quality, downloads onto a DRM protected hard drive make the most sense. And that's exactly Vidity's plan. Western Digital is a founding partner, and their preliminary website makes it fairly clear that DRM protected hard drives are exactly the route that Vidity is taking. I'm more excited about this new service than anything else in the UltraHD arena so far.


----------



## jimv1983

Scott Wilkinson said:


> *I think you mean will HDR content make a noticeable difference in PQ versus the same HDR content on a non-HDR display.* It's not clear, but your analogy to resolution, while a reasonable thought, is not entirely apt. With resolution, you're right that starting with more and scaling it down generally does make a noticeable improvement compared with the same content that started at the lower resolution to begin with. But dynamic range is different, and what happens when you play HDR content on a non-HDR display depends on the HDR system.
> 
> For example, Dolby Vision is a two-layer system with SDR in the base layer and HDR metadata in the enhancement layer, so it is backward-compatible with SDR displays. In that case, I wouldn't expect to see a big improvement on an SDR display, since the HDR metadata is simply ignored.
> 
> On the other hand, SMPTE is a single-layer system. In a separate thread, AVS member ray0414 documents his attempt to play the Samsung-provided HDR clips from Life of Pi and Exodus on his 2014 Samsung HU9000 before he got the One Connect Box that upgrades it to HDR, and he found the picture to look very washed out; after the upgrade, it looked way better than even high-quality SDR content.


Yes, that is what I meant. Typo. Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting and helpful.


----------



## WHATTHEDILEO

I feel UHD resolution is reasonable for computer monitors and screens ~70" and above.

I remember looking at a 1080p Sharp 90" display at BB years ago, and you could literally see the pixels from an approximate 'movie-watching distance'. That same store had an 80" Sharp that had no such issue.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

R Harkness said:


> There is something ironic, or perhaps counterproductive, isn't there, in an AV-site recommending AV-enthusiasts hold back on adopting a new format?
> 
> By that I mean: the people *most interested in jumping to a higher quality format should be US.* And if WE are going to council each other to not take the leap, who will? We'd be the ones most appreciating the change, but would be contributing to the slow...or non...adoption of the technology needed to make the change.
> 
> Not that I actually disagree with Scott's recommendation. I'm just musing on the implications....
> 
> (I guess it sort of reminds me of how weirdly often I see on AV-enthusiast sites when a new technological or format change is offered "No way, not this time. I parted with my money to upgrade the last time, you aren't going to get my money THIS TIME!" At which point I wonder what such folks are actually doing on an AV-enthusiast site).


I don't think it's ironic or counterproductive at all. It's not necessarily smart to buy into every new thing just because it's new; just ask those who invested in HD DVD. For most consumers, even many AVS members, I believe that prudence about UHD is warranted at this point, especially if money is tight. I know I would be royally pissed if a spent a bunch of money on a new display only to find that it was incompatible with HDR and WCG content a year later when many—I'd wager most—on AVS are going to be saying how great it is.

On the other hand, early adopters are critical for supporting further developments that end up benefiting the rest of us; after all, if there were no early adopters, many advancements would never be made. These intrepid souls often have sufficient funds to upgrade every year or two, so my recommendation to wait until the HDR dust settles isn't aimed at them. In fact, I salute them!


----------



## WaterBottle

Regarding content: I have been amassing a blu-ray collection lately, as prices have come down on some older films and more $5-$10 blu-ray sales have been going on. 

Questions for those more informed than I am.

1. Am I getting the highest resolution possible for most films when I purchase 1080p blu-ray's? Or are the "master" files for most movies being compressed to accommodate the 1080p standard? I guess the ultimate question is whether or not the films I'm purchasing now in 1080p will be re-released in the future in 4K?

2. Would you advise that I stop purchasing 1080p blu-rays until 4K re-releases come out?

For reference, I am currently using a 1080p projector on a 120" screen, sitting approximately 12.5 feet from the screen. So I assume I would see the benefit of 4K on my display.

Thanks!


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

IanR said:


> Scott .. tks for this. Are you also contemplating something similar for A/V receivers? I'm not sure how you'd organize the content .. or what the factors might be .. but support for HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 would be a couple of items. UHD Blu-Ray implications? Support for ATMOS/Auro/Dolby would be another. Also maybe a statement as to whether you would need support for HDR/WCG/etc .. or whether that stuff just 'passes through'.
> It's probably an easier discussion for a TV because it's a 'target device' .. whereas the receiver is in the middle of everything and has all the interoperability implications of not only the video stuff .. but also the audio.


We are planning several of these "top 10" lists, and your idea of doing one on AVRs is great; thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Karp

javanpohl said:


> In regards to resolution, I remember the same, exact arguments against 1080p when it first came around. Not necessarily in comparison to 480i/p but in comparison to 720p. And i was actually totally sold on that idea. I thought all these people flocking to the 1080 50" TVs were chumps. I was going to save a few hundred bucks by getting a 720p TV and laugh my way all the way to the bank, MWAHAHAHA!!! ... and then I saw a 1080p 50" TV sitting next to a 720P 50" tv (same brand and model level) from about 10" away. "Are those jaggies???" It was a no-brainer. Maybe there's a sitting distance where a person could actually not discern a difference between 1080p and UHD on a reasonably sized TV, but, as for all of these claims that "most of the time, you can't even tell the difference"--is complete and utter baloney. Granted, I apparently have really good vision (I can apparently still see further than my gf who just got lazik), so maybe I'm an exception.
> 
> Even taking all that into account, I'm actually not sold on the idea of a UHD TV. I'd be very interested to upgrade my projector in the near future though; however, that area oddly doesn't have much development. I mean, we're about to get PHONES (from TWO different companies) with UHD resolution and we still only have ONE company making UHD projectors??? It's absurd.



480P looks wonderful from 10 feet away on the 13" TV in my workshop. 1080P is a noticeable improvement compared to 720P at a 10' seating distance for for a 50", but not a 32". My 70" 1080P looks great from 12' in the den. I'd love a 4K projector and a 120" screen when I finally set up a theater in this house, although I enjoyed the 1080P projection on the 100" screen in the theater I built in my last house.

Now... improve the black levels and the color bandwidth at the same time - That would be a noticeable difference! Otherwise, I'm gonna stick with 1080P until all the details for 4K get sorted out and the price drops to 1080P prices.


----------



## WHATTHEDILEO

I currently have a Sony HW35 projector that I got as an open-box last year. My plan is to watch it until the bulb needs replaced, and instead replace it in ~2016 or 2017 with a 4k Sony or JVC (must be LCOS for deep blacks) and 4K Oppo streamer/player. Both devices must have fully implemented HDMI 2.x and HDCP 2.x (what ever level both specs are at when 2nd Gen UHD players are available).

I have well over 1,000 DVD's, and I've always wanted an Oppo but so far I've gotten by with my PS3. I'd rather buy an Oppo than a PS4+PSN Subscription.

Then I'll sell the old projector on Craig's List for beer money.


----------



## R Harkness

Scott Wilkinson said:


> It's not necessarily smart to buy into every new thing just because it's new;


Agreed.



Scott Wilkinson said:


> On the other hand, early adopters are critical for supporting further developments that end up benefiting the rest of us; after all, if there were no early adopters, many advancements would never be made. These intrepid souls often have sufficient funds to upgrade every year or two, so my recommendation to wait until the HDR dust settles isn't aimed at them. In fact, I salute them!


Agreed.

And that is exactly the type of paradox I was trying to get at. In a way it's never smart to buy a brand new technology on the bleeding edge. This makes sense for pretty much anyone, including us.

But if no one shows interest in a new technology through actually buying it, then it kills off the momentum toward the improvements we desire. And who 
is more likely to buy on the bleeding edge than fervent AV enthusiasts, vs the normal Joe? We are the ones most likely to help a new technology get it's feet on the ground as far as early adopting, and we are the ones who care most that the technology is adopted, yet here we are saying "don't be one of those early adopters...wait it out..." If not us...who?



Scott Wilkinson said:


> just ask those who invested in HD DVD.


Yer lookin' at 'im.

I still have a sizable HD DVD collection. I was always glad I got right into collecting HD media because I wanted to enjoy it then, not waaaaiiit until the wars were over. And I loved the movies I bought on HD-DVD, and still watch them. Yeah ultimately it was a die toss as to which would win, but I was happier rolling the dice and actually watching my favorite movies in HD rather than waiting. Life's short and all that...


----------



## myriadcorp

If you need to buy a new tv there is no reason not to buy a new 4k set. I had to replace an old Samsung plasma. When it got hot, and it always did like a heat radiator, the screen had tons of little flashes of pixels. It was like the cosmic background radiation or something. If you got up close you could see it good but if you were far away your eye wouldn't pick it up. The TV was about 10 years old so I was due for an upgrade. I went for the Samsung JU7100. It's a nice set and a huge upgrade over my old TV. In addition, the bedroom is no longer smothering hot from all the extra heat from the plasma.


----------



## James Freeman

R Harkness said:


> There is something ironic, or perhaps counterproductive, isn't there, in an AV-site recommending AV-enthusiasts hold back on adopting a new format?


No, what Scott is saying is Don't eat the half baked pie because you'll get a tummy ache...
He is absolutely right.


----------



## EvLee

WaterBottle said:


> 1. Am I getting the highest resolution possible for most films when I purchase 1080p blu-ray's? Or are the "master" files for most movies being compressed to accommodate the 1080p standard? I guess the ultimate question is whether or not the films I'm purchasing now in 1080p will be re-released in the future in 4K?


The source files may be higher resolution. Scans are often created and archived at 4K (true 4k, not 3840) or even higher, with the final color graded files downsampled to HD. With digital capture, it depends a lot on what generation camera was used. It's up to each studio to decide if they want to archive a 4K color graded file, or just the raw source and HD color graded master (which will be 10bit). In either case, the archived files are uncompressed.

If the movie gets rereleased in the future in UHD, they will probably want to regrade the files to take advantage of the wider gamut and HDR. There are a couple of ways they can regrade, but again it largely comes down to studio decisions (cost and expected return) whether they go all the way back to the source, bring back the director for creative approval or simply do an enhancement pass on the existing master.



> 2. Would you advise that I stop purchasing 1080p blu-rays until 4K re-releases come out?
> 
> For reference, I am currently using a 1080p projector on a 120" screen, sitting approximately 12.5 feet from the screen. So I assume I would see the benefit of 4K on my display.


I think many current blu-rays look really fantastic, about as good as they will ever be. Rereleasing in UHD does not guarantee a better product. If you can get a good price on a current blu-ray movie and there are no problems that need to be corrected (bad transfer, low bitrate/compression artifacts, color banding, etc…) then I would add it to my collection now. $5 is a bargain and a good 4k upscaler will get you the rest of the way if you upgrade your projector past your current 1080p. If you stay with a 1080p projector, then any extra 4k resolution on disc is pretty much moot because you'll never get it onto the screen.


----------



## yukinok25

Completely agree with Scott.

I have to say thus that in my Sharp 50" 4K TV, the colors look much more vivid at 4K resolution than 1080p, and movies looks better. I definitely can see a difference, not huge but is there.


----------



## wxman

Thanks Scott! You provide sane reasoning to wait a few years. Unfotunately, my insanity has led to a few bad purchases.


----------



## Franin

> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.


I will take your recommendation Scott. Im going to wait, no rush


----------



## ThePrisoner

I'm looking to upgrade to a 70" or larger 4K display but I'm trying to patiently wait for high dynamic range (HDR), wider color gamut (WCG), and high frame rate (HFR) to all be implemented before I purchase for reasons you stated Scott.


----------



## mtbdudex

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Should you get an HD or UHD display for your home theater? There are several things to consider before making this important decision.
> ........
> ......
> 
> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.


Finally, reason and common sense trumps the madness of upgrade-itis!
100% agree, late 2016 may be the timing the stars align for UHD, until then those with deep pocket's that buy now a big hearty THANK YOU for funding the R&D cycle.


----------



## Chase Payne

javanpohl said:


> In regards to resolution, I remember the same, exact arguments against 1080p when it first came around. Not necessarily in comparison to 480i/p but in comparison to 720p. And i was actually totally sold on that idea. I thought all these people flocking to the 1080 50" TVs were chumps. I was going to save a few hundred bucks by getting a 720p TV and laugh my way all the way to the bank, MWAHAHAHA!!! ... and then I saw a 1080p 50" TV sitting next to a 720P 50" tv (same brand and model level) from about 10" away. "Are those jaggies???" It was a no-brainer. Maybe there's a sitting distance where a person could actually not discern a difference between 1080p and UHD on a reasonably sized TV, but, as for all of these claims that "most of the time, you can't even tell the difference"--is complete and utter baloney. Granted, I apparently have really good vision (I can apparently still see further than my gf who just got lazik), so maybe I'm an exception.
> 
> Even taking all that into account, I'm actually not sold on the idea of a UHD TV. I'd be very interested to upgrade my projector in the near future though; however, that area oddly doesn't have much development. I mean, we're about to get PHONES (from TWO different companies) with UHD resolution and we still only have ONE company making UHD projectors??? It's absurd.


Actually most people with 1080p TVs have them at such small sizes and far distances that you could not tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Most cable content is still at 720p anyway, and may even look better on those native 720p displays.

This whole resolution craze is really nonsense. The only thing that matters is angular resolution. There is no purpose for a phone having UHD resolution, you can only see up to a certain part. 

Because there is no standard for resolution on mobile phones, visiting websites is an absolute nightmare most of the time because it is making a UHD image fit on on a screen that shoud really be like 900p, making fonts really small and hard to navigate. 

The only way for website people to catch up is making adjustable interface in HTML5, but they're not even doing that. Most of them make just really basic websites, if there was just a standard for resolution for phones, mobile sites would be a lot prettier.


The 1080p sets where marketed against higher income brackets so they typically would have more features such as better contrast, uniformity and motion; the same can be said for the 4k TV's but you would have to reach the $5000 range to get a good 4k tv at this time.


----------



## ncted

Scott Wilkinson said:


> ...
> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend waiting to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two—that is, unless you're a fervent early adopter and replace your display every couple of years anyway.


These are the reasons why I didn't bother to spend the money on a UHD set to replace my failed plasma which died recently with no service parts availability. I just got the best bang for the buck 70" 1080p set to hold me over until the new standards are settled on.


----------



## bac522

This reminds me of the Camera pixel wars in the early 2000's...it's not just about pixel count but the electronics behind it as well. My 12 year old Canon G2 4 megapixel camera still blows away my brand new Nikon 16 megapixel point & shoot camera in terms of picture quality, color and clarity!

I just bought a HD TV and saved some $$$ doing so since 99% of my viewing material is only 720p and 1080i material, I couldn't see wasting money on a UHD TV...5 years from now, I'll see what happens


----------



## dholmes54

And another reason I got a new TV the Sharp I bought suxs but I paid below 700.00 for it sometimes you get what you pay for!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I wonder if the current gen consoles, Xbox 1 and PS4 will get any kind of update to make them capable of 4k streaming. They did mention that the PS4 should be capable of displaying 4k video, but that 4k gaming is still beyond its capabilities. I would think the chipset more than capable to do 4k streaming from Netflix and Amazon. Is it a problem with the version of HDMI they have?


----------



## KidHorn

UHD showing a true UHD image looks much better than 1080p from almost any reasonable viewing distance to my eyes. At least the ones I've seen at best Buy.

I won't get a UHD TV until several months after UHD blu-ray is out. I want to read reviews and avoid the buggy players. Plus the cost of the players will likely have dropped by then.


----------



## vulgartrendkill

Thanks for this great article, Scott.

I am too going to wait until UHD beds in, and won't be upgrading until there is a 4k WCG HDR set that takes my fancy. And as I love Ambilight, it will have to be DIY with a PI or a Philips.

I think I am right in saying that UK broadcasts are stuck at 1080i maximum, however most channels are still 720p, so until these standards are figured out there is no major need for a new set. 

Unfortunately.


----------



## nvidio

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Unknown at this time, but it seems to me that projectors are lagging behind flat panels in terms of resolution, HDR, WCG, etc. Yes, there are a few projectors with 4K resolution, but not nearly as many as the number of flat panels. And I don't know of any imminently available projectors with the other attributes. Maybe we'll see some at CEDIA; I hope so!


WCG (Rec.2020) projection is currently possible:






On the future goal of HDR projection (please skip to 3'35" in the video):


----------



## R Harkness

James Freeman said:


> No, what Scott is saying is Don't eat the half baked pie because you'll get a tummy ache...
> He is absolutely right.


Yes, of course, I understand that. 

But that recommendation would apply to virtually EVERY new implementation of every new technology. All of them are "half-baked" relative to their potential, what is coming, etc. And yet we need early adopters to take the plunge in order for the technology to get off the ground. And who would be most motivated to do so, if not enthusiasts for the particular technology, over the average person who might barely know it exists? 

Again: I'm not saying Scott is wrong - he's clearly RIGHT in terms of a wise, conservative approach to buying. But that is the paradox I'm pointing to: He's right, but actually getting new technology to take hold _requires a significant number of people to ignore his advice for holding off a purchase._

Does anyone see what I'm getting at?


----------



## mo949

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Not necessarily; it all depends on what's in the signal and what the display can decode. For example, I saw Tomorrowland in both HDR and SDR; the SDR version looked considerably worse, and that was at the same resolution as the HDR version (4K). Granted, I don't know if Dolby Vision for commercial cinema works the same as it does for consumer TVs (that is, dual layer), but I would assume so. Also, I don't know if Disney released one DCP for both types of theaters, expecting the SDR projectors to ignore the HDR metadata, or if they did two separate DCPs graded accordingly. As I said in the OP and elsewhere, I believe that increased resolution offers the least amount of benefit comapred with 1080p. WCG offers more benefit compared with BT.709, but exactly how that will be conveyed and decoded remains an open question as far as I know.


Thanks for the extra info Scott.

Follow me on this for a moment if you will. Since the HDR cinema master of Tomorrowland is at about 100 nits, it would be a good fit for SDR UHD TV since UHD SDR is already 100 nits - so why should you lose any quality on a home UHD TV (extent of color gamut excepted)?

Another way of putting it: If you released both the UHD Bluray of Tomorrowland in both HDR and SDR, the SDR disc should look like the cinematic presentation of tomorrowland in HDR and the bluray HDR version will be something new entirely. 

Now if that same UHD Bluray with SDR looks worse than the 100 nit cinematic tomorrowland in HDR, then that would mean some other areas of UHD would have been compromised since the dynamic range of cinema HDR = TV SDR - there's no reason for a UHD Bluray in SDR to be displayed on a UHD TV in BT709 so that isn't relevant.


----------



## mtbdudex

R Harkness said:


> Yes, of course, I understand that.
> 
> But that recommendation would apply to virtually EVERY new implementation of every new technology. All of them are "half-baked" relative to their potential, what is coming, etc. And yet we need early adopters to take the plunge in order for the technology to get off the ground. And who would be most motivated to do so, if not enthusiasts for the particular technology, over the average person who might barely know it exists?
> 
> Again: I'm not saying Scott is wrong - he's clearly RIGHT in terms of a wise, conservative approach to buying. But that is the paradox I'm pointing to: He's right, but actually getting new technology to take hold _requires a significant number of people to ignore his advice for holding off a purchase._
> 
> Does anyone see what I'm getting at?


Rich - I understand your point, clearly, I've been there not on the A/V side but computers.... I spend $40k 1984 - 1994 and finally upon reflection of why and gains I got off that gravy train.

I'd venture to say that many-many people here have been on the bleeding edge of technology for A/V, and after a while realized it's $$$ to do that and not sustainable for most hobbyists. 
Sure, deep pocket hobbyists yes, but family hobbyists not really.
"If I won the lotto", man I'd go gangbusters and be the bleeding edge on so many fronts, but until then need to be prudent and prioritize.


----------



## ncted

KidHorn said:


> UHD showing a true UHD image looks much better than 1080p from almost any reasonable viewing distance to my eyes. At least the ones I've seen at best Buy.
> 
> I won't get a UHD TV until several months after UHD blu-ray is out. I want to read reviews and avoid the buggy players. Plus the cost of the players will likely have dropped by then.


If I sat closer, I could see the difference. My seat is about 15 feet from my TV in my family room, which is where I primarily watch. 

At that distance in Best Buy, I could not tell any significant difference between the UHD and 1080p sets on display. They both looked ok at best. Unfortunately, Best Buy does not calibrate any of their sets on display, so you get torch mode, with SOE on all LED sets, and, at least on sub-UHD content, you get interpolation artifacts. All of this is very distracting. 

Anyway, at my seating distance I would need a *HUGE* set to really see UHD well, and that would come at a price I was unwilling to pay. As it is, my 70" isn't going to be quite as big as it should be for my room, but it should be better than the 64" it is replacing.


----------



## Hank

jakmal said:


> Current display technology doesn't allow for any display to cover 100% of that, but, TVs based on quantum-dot technology can cover upwards of 90% of the BT.2020 color gamut. Displays covering a wider color gamut will lead to a richer experience with the upcoming UHD Blu-ray content.


 My company, 3M, demonstrated last week at SID Display Week a panel with gamut of 93.7 percent coverage of Rec. 2020 – large enough to accurately represent 99.4 percent of the 53,497 color samples in the Standard Object Color Spectra database. Here's a preproduction TV with our Quantum Dot Enhancement Film:
http://www.displaydaily.com/content...ds-to-monitors-and-helps-auto-makers-use-lcds
Mods: if Display Daily is competition, feel free to delete my link.


----------



## Glimmie

R Harkness said:


> There is something ironic, or perhaps counterproductive, isn't there, in an AV-site recommending AV-enthusiasts hold back on adopting a new format?
> 
> By that I mean: the people *most interested in jumping to a higher quality format should be US.* And if WE are going to council each other to not take the leap, who will? We'd be the ones most appreciating the change, but would be contributing to the slow...or non...adoption of the technology needed to make the change.
> 
> Not that I actually disagree with Scott's recommendation. I'm just musing on the implications....
> 
> (I guess it sort of reminds me of how weirdly often I see on AV-enthusiast sites when a new technological or format change is offered "No way, not this time. I parted with my money to upgrade the last time, you aren't going to get my money THIS TIME!" At which point I wonder what such folks are actually doing on an AV-enthusiast site).


I think Scott's list is a good example of what gives AVS it's great reputation. It is not only about the latest and greatest. This forum is also a well known reference for honest user provided information and experience as well as the available professional advice here. Many non enthusiasts come here as well for advice.

Dumping a perfectly good 1080P set today for UHD is not a prudent idea. Not enough content or stability yet. However if you need a new TV anyway, perhaps a UHD set is your best move provided you understand the current limitations of UHD/HDR technology and compatibilities. 

The hard core enthusiasts are going to buy the latest and greatest no matter what is said here. I think it's good we as a group can provide some cautions to the average viewer with limited funds.


----------



## steve1971

Glimmie said:


> I think Scott's list is a good example of what gives AVS it's great reputation. It is not only about the latest and greatest. This forum is also a well known reference for honest user provided information and experience as well as the available professional advice here. Many non enthusiasts come here as well for advice.
> 
> Dumping a perfectly good 1080P set today for UHD is not a prudent idea. Not enough content or stability yet. However if you need a new TV anyway, perhaps a UHD set is your best move provided you understand the current limitations of UHD/HDR technology and compatibilities.
> 
> The hard core enthusiasts are going to buy the latest and greatest no matter what is said here. I think it's good we as a group can provide some cautions to the average viewer with limited funds.



Well said!


----------



## Hank

+1


----------



## dholmes54

I hope my comments wherent offencive to Mr Scott W,I love his articles also the Imagic guy!


----------



## p5browne

One only has to read the current SEK-3500U Forum to see the complete chaos it's causing! UHD 4K upgraded! This Video upgrading is an addiction - once you see it better, it's hard to go back. UHD Videos, then back to Standard 1080P TV - argg! 
But, Big Bang Theory on regular TV, looks like an entirely different program now with the SEK-3500U - dingy apartment gone, pastly skin colours gone, - for being a rerun on regular TV, amazing how much better the program now looks. After watching the UHD videos- bring on the 4K players, and streaming - I like it! I want more - and the howls of protests from around the world, and even at home that they can't get this upgrade is gaining. I think Samsung has a winner!


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

nvidio said:


> WCG (Rec.2020) projection is currently possible:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8L1WbfMeI
> 
> 
> On the future goal of HDR projection (please skip to 3'35" in the video):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGxQbfWLqQs


Yes, 2020 projection is possible—from a digital cinema projector that costs in the six figures! But I don't think we'll see that in a consumer product for a while. Yes, quantum-dot LCDs can get quite close to 2020, so perhaps sooner than later. But it will still be quite a while until we get content graded for 2020 color.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

dholmes54 said:


> I hope my comments wherent offencive to Mr Scott W,I love his articles also the Imagic guy!


No problem! And thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Scott Wilkinson

R Harkness said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> And that is exactly the type of paradox I was trying to get at. In a way it's never smart to buy a brand new technology on the bleeding edge. This makes sense for pretty much anyone, including us.
> 
> But if no one shows interest in a new technology through actually buying it, then it kills off the momentum toward the improvements we desire. And who
> is more likely to buy on the bleeding edge than fervent AV enthusiasts, vs the normal Joe? We are the ones most likely to help a new technology get it's feet on the ground as far as early adopting, and we are the ones who care most that the technology is adopted, yet here we are saying "don't be one of those early adopters...wait it out..." If not us...who?
> 
> 
> 
> Yer lookin' at 'im.
> 
> I still have a sizable HD DVD collection. I was always glad I got right into collecting HD media because I wanted to enjoy it then, not waaaaiiit until the wars were over. And I loved the movies I bought on HD-DVD, and still watch them. Yeah ultimately it was a die toss as to which would win, but I was happier rolling the dice and actually watching my favorite movies in HD rather than waiting. Life's short and all that...


I want to thank you for a stimulating discussion of an important and paradoxical issue. In fact, because of your comments, I edited point #10 in the OP to be more specific: "Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend that mainstream consumers and enthusiasts with limited means wait to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two. This does not apply to fervent early adopters who replace their display every couple of years anyway; in fact, it's because of them that we see so much progress in the development of all consumer-electronics products."

Thanks again for your excellent comments!


----------



## R Harkness

Scott,

As I'm sure you understand I wasn't disagreeing with anything you'd originally written. I was just musing on something that struck me when reading it.

But now that you've changed it I think you made the point perfectly.


----------



## Otium

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Unknown at this time, but it seems to me that projectors are lagging behind flat panels in terms of resolution, HDR, WCG, etc. Yes, there are a few projectors with 4K resolution, but not nearly as many as the number of flat panels. And I don't know of any imminently available projectors with the other attributes. Maybe we'll see some at CEDIA; I hope so!



Thank you for your article, Scott.
I am in pain over purchasing a Sony 4k projector. I am ready to upgrade, but reading what you wrote on the subject mater, I am again postponing that quantum jump into 4k.
The question for me is: how long do we have to wait before it will be safe to invest in a 4k projector? May be too long for me.
It is unlikely that I would purchase a 4k flat TV because, as you said, smaller screen sizes do not make that much difference.
Thank you for including a picture of HD v 4k. Are they HD and 4k material images or HD up-converted to 4k?
I would be interested in seeing a close up of HD frame displayed on a 4k screen.


----------



## ray0414

HDR is certainly the future. I am very excited to see the whole HDR story roll out. I think a year from now HDR will certainly be a huge hit. The overall picture quality is so much better than 1080P blu ray.

Sorry for the bad pictures, and the pictures do not speak the entire truth. the HDR version is absolutely gorgious on the screen. Very rich colors which maximizes the panels potential. Whiter whites, blacker blacks. Better contrast, more realistic/richer colors. The entire background pops out with more details and better color seperation.

EXodus is a top notch blu ray in terms of quality, but pretty much gets destroyed when compared to the HDR version. exact same settings here. Cant wait for HDR content to drop!! HU9000 with SEK-3500 upgrade.


----------



## vulgartrendkill

ray0414 said:


> HDR is certainly the future. I am very excited to see the whole HDR story roll out. I think a year from now HDR will certainly be a huge hit. The overall picture quality is so much better than 1080P blu ray.
> 
> Sorry for the bad pictures, and the pictures do not speak the entire truth. the HDR version is absolutely gorgious on the screen. Very rich colors which maximizes the panels potential. Whiter whites, blacker blacks. Better contrast, more realistic/richer colors. The entire background pops out with more details and better color seperation.
> 
> EXodus is a top notch blu ray in terms of quality, but pretty much gets destroyed when compared to the HDR version. exact same settings here. Cant wait for HDR content to drop!! HU9000 with SEK-3500 upgrade.


Forgive me, but I am assuming the 2nd picture is the HDR one?


----------



## ray0414

vulgartrendkill said:


> Forgive me, but I am assuming the 2nd picture is the HDR one?


Yes. I am in the process though of getting a better camera that can capture details and color more appropriately. But I still think the differences are easily picked if u know what they should be.


----------



## losservatore

FALD HDR or OLED HDR is they way to go for HDR.


all LCDs should already come with FALD and should already be implemented the right way, they should be more focused on improving FALD.


----------



## Mark12547

Chase Payne said:


> Actually most people with 1080p TVs have them at such small sizes and far distances that you could not tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.


And with many of my friends, I would even add 480p! :eeksurprise:



Chase Payne said:


> Most cable content is still at 720p anyway, and may even look better on those native 720p displays.


Of the HD channels I get on cable, about 75% to 80% are 1080i; making 720p the minority of HD channels. This is probably fairly typical in the United States, e.g., you can look at this Wikipedia page and scroll down to "List of current high-definition channels".

Actually, the first HDTV I purchased (46-in Samsung 1080p) was for viewing Blu-ray discs, which by that time had won the HD physical media format wars.



Chase Payne said:


> The 1080p sets where marketed against higher income brackets so they typically would have more features such as better contrast, uniformity and motion; the same can be said for the 4k TV's but you would have to reach the $5000 range to get a good 4k tv at this time.


This is typical of leading edge. By the time I purchased my first HDTV, 1080p was mainstream for 46-in HDTVs, but in the smaller sizes (such as 32-in) 1080p still carried a noticeable premium.

Having worked in computers for over three decades, I have learned some generalizations about bleeding edges.

*Leading Bleeding Edge*

This is the "latest and greatest" in technology.

Here are some common down sides of the leading bleeding edge:


One generally pays a premium to be right at the bleeding edge. Being a year behind often saves incredible amounts of cash.
There are often bugs one encounters with the first release of a new technology that get worked out later in the production run or in a subsequent model.
If it involves a new technology, a new interface, a new standard, etc., there is the risk that it may be abandoned or shortly be made obsolete. (The HD DVR is just one example. There was also DIVX for a disc rental scheme but required purchasing a DVD-like player. There was also Betamax.)



*Trailing Bleeding Edge*

This is old or abandoned technology.

The down sides of the trailing bleeding edge:


The particular device may no longer have parts available, or replacements of the device may become harder to locate and become more expensive. (My most recent encounter with this was when I tried to replace a VCR and had to settle on the DVD player/VCR combo, which was more expensive.)
The device eventually becomes incompatible with its environment or requires more and more workarounds to function in it. (E.g., TVs with NTSC-only tuners requiring converter boxes; some devices may require adapters or format converters between them and the TV.)
Eventually a more modern device may be cheaper, faster, or better than the obsolete technology (e.g., HDTV over the old CRTs, DVRs over VCRs for time shifting, Blu-ray over DVD over VHS cassettes for home video distribution, fiber or cable Internet over dial-up modems). (In my case, I abandoned my VCRs and NTSC-only CRT and replaced them with a HDTV and a HD DVR the very day Comcast dropped the analog channels, and since then I had been asking why I hadn't done that sooner.)

None of this should be taken that one should avoid the bleeding edges, but rather that one should include the possibilities of the downsides in making one's decision.


----------



## p5browne

When I first got into the electronics game - a major change was every 2 years. I would be safe to say, that today, every 6 months, and getting shorter.
As someone once mentioned, at some point you have to jump in, even in knowing, 6 months later it will be newer, faster and cheaper. Just the nature of the current beast!


----------



## Chase Payne

ray0414 said:


> Yes. I am in the process though of getting a better camera that can capture details and color more appropriately. But I still think the differences are easily picked if u know what they should be.


Doesn't seem that much different to me, just looks brighter with a different color temperature. The changes are so small that it would probably suffer from change blindness.


----------



## ray0414

Chase Payne said:


> Doesn't seem that much different to me, just looks brighter with a different color temperature. The changes are so small that it would probably suffer from change blindness.



the pictures dont do it justice. i am going to retake when i get my better camera back. the overall picture is brighter, better/richer colors, whites/blacks much improved too.


----------



## DeadEd

dholmes54 said:


> How long should we wait every time something new comes out lately it lacks this that or something,I just ordered a vizio 65 in uhdtv.I'm just going to enjoy the TV,it looked excellent at Best Buy so i went for it,there's always something better around the corner,it never ends unless $$ is not a problem for you it is for me,and as far as the new blu-ray coming this fall I'll wait remember all the trouble when blu-ray came out! besides live today tommrow may not come (is that to negative?) I'm in my 60s!


If you are in your 60's then tomorrow already came! Nothing wrong with buying new good stuff. I think what Scott is saying is that there are come components to this new UHD (or 4k) system that they have not inculded yet in the TVs. If you buy a 4K now and it does not have the wide gamut color or it won't hook up to the new HD BluRays that will come out, you are going to be pretty upset in six months when they come out with it for the same price you just paid.


----------



## dholmes54

If I did get into the new blu-ray why won't it work,is it because of the color problem,it took them 4 yes plus to get blu-rays to load under 20mins even with firmware upgrade


----------



## jrob23

javanpohl said:


> In regards to resolution, I remember the same, exact arguments against 1080p when it first came around. Not necessarily in comparison to 480i/p but in comparison to 720p. And i was actually totally sold on that idea. I thought all these people flocking to the 1080 50" TVs were chumps. I was going to save a few hundred bucks by getting a 720p TV and laugh my way all the way to the bank, MWAHAHAHA!!! ... and then I saw a 1080p 50" TV sitting next to a 720P 50" tv (same brand and model level) from about 10" away. "Are those jaggies???" It was a no-brainer. Maybe there's a sitting distance where a person could actually not discern a difference between 1080p and UHD on a reasonably sized TV, but, as for all of these claims that "most of the time, you can't even tell the difference"--is complete and utter baloney. Granted, I apparently have really good vision (I can apparently still see further than my gf who just got lazik), so maybe I'm an exception.


Yeah, I'm not buying that quote either. Differences in resolution are very observable. I have no idea how people can say otherwise. Maybe it is really that their vision is poor. This forum is for hobbyists who don't throw a TV in the corner of their living room and watch from 25 feet away. I imagine the majority of us watch our displays from under 10 feet (my 50st60 is 7 feet) and can easily see the difference between 720p, 1080p, 4K. So I wish we, on here, could stop saying this. Why would you frequent a site devoted to PQ of display devices and NOT adhere to the proper set up of your home theater? I think the people that say this about resolution (not seeing the difference) are people that don't care. So maybe stop asking them and considering their opinions when talking about PQ on this site.


----------



## jrob23

EvLee said:


> The source files may be higher resolution. Scans are often created and archived at 4K (true 4k, not 3840) or even higher, with the final color graded files downsampled to HD. With digital capture, it depends a lot on what generation camera was used. It's up to each studio to decide if they want to archive a 4K color graded file, or just the raw source and HD color graded master (which will be 10bit). In either case, the archived files are uncompressed.
> 
> If the movie gets rereleased in the future in UHD, they will probably want to regrade the files to take advantage of the wider gamut and HDR. There are a couple of ways they can regrade, but again it largely comes down to studio decisions (cost and expected return) whether they go all the way back to the source, bring back the director for creative approval or simply do an enhancement pass on the existing master.
> 
> 
> 
> I think many current blu-rays look really fantastic, about as good as they will ever be. Rereleasing in UHD does not guarantee a better product. If you can get a good price on a current blu-ray movie and there are no problems that need to be corrected (bad transfer, low bitrate/compression artifacts, color banding, etc…) then I would add it to my collection now. $5 is a bargain and a good 4k upscaler will get you the rest of the way if you upgrade your projector past your current 1080p. If you stay with a 1080p projector, then any extra 4k resolution on disc is pretty much moot because you'll never get it onto the screen.



You are saying that because you haven't seen those movies in 4k yet. I don't know all the particulars but I think as long as you have a clean master you can use that to output it in 4K. Thinking about my favorite movies...I can only imagine how incredible they will look with WCG, HDR, etc. I'm specifically thinking about Braveheart, Crouching Tiger, Pixar, Close Encounters. Sure these look fantastic in 1080p blu ray. But need I remind you how incredible blu ray looks compared to dvd? I expect that leap if not more.


----------



## nvidio

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Yes, 2020 projection is possible—from a digital cinema projector that costs in the six figures! But I don't think we'll see that in a consumer product for a while. Yes, quantum-dot LCDs can get quite close to 2020, so perhaps sooner than later. But it will still be quite a while until we get content graded for 2020 color.


A ticket to the cinema doesn't cost in the six figures, though...


----------



## DeadEd

dholmes54 said:


> If I did get into the new blu-ray why won't it work,is it because of the color problem,it took them 4 yes plus to get blu-rays to load under 20mins even with firmware upgrade


Different HDMI specifications


----------



## Chase Payne

ray0414 said:


> Chase Payne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem that much different to me, just looks brighter with a different color temperature. The changes are so small that it would probably suffer from change blindness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the pictures dont do it justice. i am going to retake when i get my better camera back. the overall picture is brighter, better/richer colors, whites/blacks much improved too.
Click to expand...

Not really enough to convince me, OLED does the same thing; except it works with all content not just supported titles.

The blacks look better because HDR increases the contrast ratio; but only on certain parts of the screen.


----------



## dholmes54

Thx I thought the Vizio was 2.0 HDMI


----------



## BAMABLUHD

Honestly, I'm starting to get upgrade fatigue. Going to HD was great. Anyone could clearly see (pun!) the positives to the upgrade. PQ, no more CRT 200lb TVs, widescreen 16'9 displays.

However, going from 720p to 1080p was noticeable when watching blu-rays, but not as dramatic as going HD to begin with. Then came the 3D fad, which was just not worth it with the glasses;still isn't.

Now we have 4K... I'd like a 4K set, but only if it's 75+ inches, which is going to be a battle with my wife, even though I have a man cave. A projector is a no go so it'll be a set. My 60in plasma is still beautiful to me, so I've still got another 2 years at least, but I do think HDR will be big. Seeing Tomorrowland in the Dolby Cinema here in Atlanta showed me what photorealistic really means.


----------



## prepress

Garman said:


> They are definitely lagging but remember most consumers just jumped on board with HD, going from 720p to 1080p sets, until most of them quit working or die out, I can't see buying one. Every set I have with the exception of my LCD in kitchen is 1080p, and I have many sets, unless one dies I don't plan on replacing any of them. Now on my projector in my HT, that I could see trading up to a new system but prices are not good yet. As far as the huge flat panels, no thanks to me, been down that road and even though they are flat, much harder to get rid of and replace when you want too, I will stick with another good 4K projector like a Sony/JVC or Epson. Currently have a Sony BRAVIA VPL-VW85 that has been ISF calibrated so I am good for about another year or two..  Unless I get a great trade in, as this has low hours..


Yes. I have a PRO-11FD. Given that and my budget, I will not be buying UHD unless forced to. I'm much more likely to upgrade my audio, if anything.


----------



## prepress

Glimmie said:


> I think Scott's list is a good example of what gives AVS it's great reputation. It is not only about the latest and greatest. This forum is also a well known reference for honest user provided information and experience as well as the available professional advice here. Many non enthusiasts come here as well for advice.
> 
> Dumping a perfectly good 1080P set today for UHD is not a prudent idea. Not enough content or stability yet. However if you need a new TV anyway, perhaps a UHD set is your best move provided you understand the current limitations of UHD/HDR technology and compatibilities.
> 
> The hard core enthusiasts are going to buy the latest and greatest no matter what is said here. I think it's good we as a group can provide some cautions to the average viewer with limited funds.


Yes! And one of the great luxuries of buying right in the first place (I think I did after much research) is that you can take your time and carefully assess the emerging tech, because you know what you have is good and are pleased. After that assessment, one can then determine more easily whether an upgrade makes sense. Being secure in one's purchases is a stress-reducer.


----------



## torii

one of the biggest questions I have is to buy an upper tier 1080p tv for maybe $3k or gamble on a uhd for more money and smaller screen size? it just doesnt make sense to me yet. to answer my own question, I bought a 75in samsung 1080p and i am not looking back. for my old eyes 1080p 75inch is just fine at a decent pricepoint. would anyone make a different choice at 3k budget?


----------



## rightintel

torii said:


> one of the biggest questions I have is to buy an upper tier 1080p tv for maybe $3k or gamble on a uhd for more money and smaller screen size? it just doesnt make sense to me yet. to answer my own question, I bought a 75in samsung 1080p and i am not looking back. for my old eyes 1080p 75inch is just fine at a decent pricepoint. would anyone make a different choice at 3k budget?


I don't think there is a 1080p model(still selling) that fits that criteria.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

vulgartrendkill said:


> Thanks for this great article, Scott.
> 
> I am too going to wait until UHD beds in, and won't be upgrading until there is a 4k WCG HDR set that takes my fancy. And as I love Ambilight, it will have to be DIY with a PI or a Philips.
> 
> *I think I am right in saying that UK broadcasts are stuck at 1080i maximum, however most channels are still 720p*, so until these standards are figured out there is no major need for a new set.
> 
> Unfortunately.


Some of the BBC channels switch between 1080/50i and "1080p25" (so not true 1080p TV like 1080p50 or more would be) based on content (eg. BBC1 HD I think). I don't know of any UK OTA 720p channels (iPlayer is though). I doubt there are any terrestrial (OTA) UK 720p channels. There is a "4K" (3.84K) satellite test channel I think.


----------



## mark haflich

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend that mainstream consumers and enthusiasts with limited means wait to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two. This recommendation does not necessarily apply to fervent early adopters who replace their display every couple of years anyway; in fact, it's because of them that we see so much progress in the development of all consumer-electronics products.
> 
> Like AVS Forum on Facebook
> Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
> +1 AVS Forum on Google+



Though I don't disagree, I think it very presumptuous that you have elevated your studied opinion to the status of one of the ten things WE must know before we can make a decision between buying a HD set or a UHD display at this point in time. Moreover, why 10 things? Just the way it happened to work out or perhaps just journalistic style? If WE need to know your opinion (because you indeed say exactly that), don't we need to know Imagic's as well? Maybe you should edit the article to 11 things you need to know or better yet, nine things you need to know and then as an aside give us your opinion as a useful but not needed consideration? 


Of course, an important factor to consider is what is the cost differential between a HD and UHD of the choices under consideration? While you have directed your don't buy UHD now recommendation to those with limited means, if the cost differential is small, the limited means most of us are limited to would still provide the financial flexibility to buy UHD now and one if has to buy a set know for whatever reason, why not buy a UHD set now? Such a purchase will help further the advancement of UHD technology. If UHD displays do not sell now, will manufacturers throw cash at making them capable of wider color spaces, HDR and HFR to name just a few. Your list indeed omits a few things that should also be considered. I am reasonably sure that 2 years from now, things will be still be in a state of flux and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Sure you will get more of the promises of UHD two years from now, but the cry will still be wait, more is coming.


BTW. Do you think that UHD Bluray will actually roll out by year's end with more than perhaps one or two very expensive players and more than one or two discs? Wouldn't it be better for the industry to wait until displays can deliver P3, HFR, and HDR and UHD Bluray provides the source content to enjoy the display's capabilities?


----------



## pottscb

R Harkness said:


> There is something ironic, or perhaps counterproductive, isn't there, in an AV-site recommending AV-enthusiasts hold back on adopting a new format?
> 
> By that I mean: the people *most interested in jumping to a higher quality format should be US.* And if WE are going to council each other to not take the leap, who will?


A point I think all display manufacturers should sit up and take notice of. If AVS'ers, typically the early adopters, are saying "I'll pass until they get this sorted out..." maybe they should think about ironing out the technical details before the third product cycle! (or however many TVs have been released in 4K). 

If I went to my manager with a plan as half cooked as the BEST new format release in CE I'd get sacked inside the week!


----------



## mark haflich

The display manufacturers are mostly dying a rather rapid death. The potential for substantial profits, let alone a profit, in the display manufacturing sector is small and sales revenue is needed to supply R & D. Private sector funding is not a solution because of the track record of the industry's economic performance over the last decade. Pottscab, if you were in this sector, you likely would have been sacked by now regardless of how well you performed your job. Likely, your job would have been reassigned to a person of lesser skills with lower salary requirements and who could work longer hours and carry a greater load, but nowhere near as well. The economy has changed from long term R and D and long term capital investment to short term immediate gains.


----------



## Tom Roper

On the WCG, the new UHDTVs can support some extended colors but what's needed is metadata aware so that they know whether to display in 709 or p3 or 2020. The Samsung UHD I have now for example has a wide gamut that can be accessed with a custom calibration but what then if it can't distinguish between incoming 709 or p3? Then only the one gamut you calibrated for will display the correct colors and the other gamuts will be skewed.

To understand the problem for HDR; what you have to understand is that the cinema camera is capturing 14+ stops of dynamic range; in the process of encoding for std 2.4 gamma with knee suitable for SDR, 6 stops of highlight range is being compressed into 2.5 stops (or less). If you throw 1600 nits of linear brightness across those 2.5 compressed stops, it's going to look like blown highlights. Again, what's needed is metadata aware so the UHD will access the intended data table.

The problem now with YUV encoding for HEVC, is that without metadata there is nothing to differentiate to the UHD decoder that Cr255 is supposed to call 709 primary red or P3 primary red. The same situation for HDR, Luma255 without metadata has nothing to differentiate to the UHD decoder that the source is std 2.4 gamma with knee, or S-Log3. The encoding is exactly the same. It's just spitting numbers.

From the camera operator to colorist, supplying you HDR and Rec.2020 are trivial matters. Tomorrowland was shot with the Sony PMW-F65 and F55 cinema cameras, both shot in 14 stop dynamic range and 16 bit color raw with a gamut wider than film. The ACES colorist can grade it in 709 or any other color space and with a click of the mouse output in rec.2020 or P3. The commentary that re-grading from 709 to P3 is arduous or difficult is anything but. I can shoot 4k content for you with the F55 in 14 stops of DR in S-Log3, grade it and output Rec. 2020 and hand it to you. The difficulty is not in giving it to you, but what you can do with it if you have it? How am I supposed to deliver? 

These problems you don't have now with Blu-ray 1080p, it's all rec.709 and it's all 2.4 (2.2) gamma, and it all looks pretty great in my opinion.

To conclude, I don't see any negatives in purchasing the UHD over HD for currently available content. It's just that you don't have any guarantees of future proofing in doing so. As rapidly as these features evolve, it is future proofing itself that has become obsolete.


----------



## ncted

ncted said:


> These are the reasons why I didn't bother to spend the money on a UHD set to replace my failed plasma which died recently with no service parts availability. I just got the best bang for the buck 70" 1080p set to hold me over until the new standards are settled on.


So, apparently, I spoke (wrote?) too soon here. After a weekend with a Vizio E70-C3, I decided to upgrade to a 4K set. Not because of 4K per se, but because the manufacturers are putting the best quality parts into their higher-end sets. This was the same situation with 3D back when it first came out. If you wanted a really good picture, you had to get 3D. Now you have to get 4K. If I hadn't been spoiled by the plasma, I probably would've stuck with the Vizio and been none the wiser. Now, I have to get a high-end set and hope I come close to what the plasma used to be.


----------



## ray0414

ncted said:


> So, apparently, I spoke (wrote?) too soon here. After a weekend with a Vizio E70-C3, I decided to upgrade to a 4K set. Not because of 4K per se, but because the manufacturers are putting the best quality parts into their higher-end sets. This was the same situation with 3D back when it first came out. If you wanted a really good picture, you had to get 3D. Now you have to get 4K. If I hadn't been spoiled by the plasma, I probably would've stuck with the Vizio and been none the wiser. Now, I have to get a high-end set and hope I come close to what the plasma used to be.



exactly. were basically forced into buying 4k sets. but i have no complaints. the overall picture on my tv is spectacular on blu rays/netflix, and even cable at times looks excellent(sports). not to mention all my smart features are extremely fast as well. (octa-core processor). you cant find a 1080P tv with an octa-core processor for blazing speed. so there are perks for buying a good 4k set.


----------



## lgroveman

torii said:


> one of the biggest questions I have is to buy an upper tier 1080p tv for maybe $3k or gamble on a uhd for more money and smaller screen size? it just doesnt make sense to me yet. to answer my own question, I bought a 75in samsung 1080p and i am not looking back. for my old eyes 1080p 75inch is just fine at a decent pricepoint. would anyone make a different choice at 3k budget?


You should definitely enjoy what you have but Sony is selling last years 70X850B for 3k and the Vizio M series is respectable and both are 4K and in your approximate price range.


----------



## ls1115

BAMABLUHD said:


> I'd like a 4K set, but only if it's 75+ inches, which is going to be a battle with my wife, even though I have a man cave. A projector is a no go


Why is a projector a no go if you have a "man cave" aka den? A 75"+ UHD TV set at this early stage of 4K would cost a lot and probably would miss some of the features noted here, while a 1080p projector from Epson or JVC would see you through the early stages of 4K development for less money and much easier upgradeability, when the time i$ right.


----------



## BroadwayBlues

Lee Heytow said:


> Comcast is realeasing a 4k box by year end - not such a long time. There will be a followup box next year with hdr.


 A 4k box for what exactly? Upscaled movies. No network is broadcasting in 4k. or are they going to upscale ESPN to 4k for us? Guess the same questions will fit for their followup HDR boxes.


----------



## ray0414

BroadwayBlues said:


> A 4k box for what exactly? Upscaled movies. No network is broadcasting in 4k. or are they going to upscale ESPN to 4k for us? Guess the same questions will fit for their followup HDR boxes.


in august, a cable company in europe is unveiling the worlds very 1st 4k channel. its an all sports channel. it requires their new box and a fiber internet connection. north america is certainly falling behind the rest of the world, not because we dont have the technology, but because they dont want to.


----------



## JayS99

This is an excellent thread and at the heart of the some of the decision point right now for me.. I can unquestionably appreciate the details of a 4K broadcast on a 4K set... What I have yet to see (and I've either been looking in the wrong places or at the wrong sets) is even reasonably good upsampling of 1080 on these sets, especially when comparing the same content on equal quality native 1080 set.

I'm not talking Wal-Mart displays, but looking at 1080 upsampled on some of the higher end 4K sets reminds me more of looking at an oil painter's palette.. facial tones are mushed together, details are just not there, etc. Like I said I'm either visiting all the wrong places or not looking at sets with strong engines. 

Can some of the 4K proponents suggest a set where the upsampled 1080 is even close to it's native set counterpart..

Jay S.


----------



## thomasfxlt

Great discussion to read through. I am in the decision-making process of which direction to go with my multipurpose room as well. I'll be doing a projector for sure but all this future 4k and HDMI 2.2 stuff has me a bit concerned about spending more than $2k on a projector at this time. The JVC 4910 would be a no-brainer if it had HDMI 2.2 but at that price without it, it seems too high. A brief visit to Best Buy yesterday sent me further into the abyss when the sales guy told me that Comcast will be providing 4k (for color depth) by fall and DirectTV has said by the end of the year. Since my room will be truly multi-purpose, I certainly want the best Satellite feed I can get.

Question? Do any of the new A/V receivers that boast HDMI 2.2 provide the ability to solve this problem for non 2.2 projectors (either one like the 4910 or say an Epson 6030/5030)?


----------



## Matthias Hutter

dchavez2401 said:


> can someone give me clarification on this statement. Im curious what size is ideal? I just want to make sure i didnt waste $2,000.lol
> I bought the new LG 4k 3d tv 65 inch. I sit about 5-7 feet back I'm guessing?


3.1 picture heights (32°) for 1080p, 1.5 picture heights (58°) for 2160p (which is _really _close)
Or in your case, 4 feet for UHD, 8.2 feet for HD

from the latest official ITU-R UHD report, page 8

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2246-4-2015-PDF-E.pdf


----------



## fizban11

Scott, great list. However, I would add to the discussion that HD doesn't require the new HDCP 2.2 standard currently being adopted across the industry. UHD will for incoming sources and it will truly complicate the signal chain.


----------



## RBTO

Scott Wilkinson said:


> 1. HD has a pixel resolution of 1920x1080, while UHD (also commonly but inaccurately known as 4K) quadruples the resolution to 3840x2160, but that additional resolution does not offer much visible benefit at typical screen sizes and seating distances. (Of course, you can see a big difference at the "pixel-peeping" distance depicted above, but few people actually sit that close to their TV.)


I'm glad to hear some people are getting the UHD/4k thing right (since 4k is actually a digital cinema standard), but people are still saying UHD offers 4 times (quadruple) the "resolution" of HD. WRONG! It offers 4 times _the pixel count_, but only twice the resolution (since it has 2 times the number of pixels along both picture axes). You will view an equivalent picture quality (resolution-wise) when you are* twice* the distance from an UHD screen (compared to HD) - hence the resolution is only double that of HD.

Very good article and it points out the advantages and shortcomings of UHD real well. I'm one of those who invested in HD pretty heavily (to the tune of dual projection 3D and a high-end plasma) so I won't be jumping on the UHD bandwagon for some time. When that time comes, UHD will have matured to a practical medium, which it isn't quite yet.


----------



## BAMABLUHD

ls1115 said:


> Why is a projector a no go if you have a "man cave" aka den? A 75"+ UHD TV set at this early stage of 4K would cost a lot and probably would miss some of the features noted here, while a 1080p projector from Epson or JVC would see you through the early stages of 4K development for less money and much easier upgradeability, when the time i$ right.


Well yes, from a cost and "today" standpoint a projector would make sense, but the compromises are more than I'd like to make. 

A projector needs a total dark room to look it's best, you also can't walk in front of a projector. Then there are the bulbs.

I do have a man cave, not a dedicated theater. I also entertain while watching lots of sports. A TV just gives more flexibility. My stereo is there as well and my PS4.

Yes, at this stage a set that I'd like would cost around $7K on the low end; don't have it, wouldn't spend it. My plasma is just fine for now. I'm likely 3 or 4 years away from making the move to 4K unless the prices really drop.


----------



## zorg43x

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Not necessarily; it all depends on what's in the signal and what the display can decode. For example, I saw Tomorrowland in both HDR and SDR; the SDR version looked considerably worse, and that was at the same resolution as the HDR version (4K). Granted, I don't know if Dolby Vision for commercial cinema works the same as it does for consumer TVs (that is, dual layer), but I would assume so. Also, I don't know if Disney released one DCP for both types of theaters, expecting the SDR projectors to ignore the HDR metadata, or if they did two separate DCPs graded accordingly. As I said in the OP and elsewhere, I believe that increased resolution offers the least amount of benefit comapred with 1080p. WCG offers more benefit compared with BT.709, but exactly how that will be conveyed and decoded remains an open question as far as I know.


I don't think the HDR is going to be "metadated", there is in fact a bunch of JPEG2000 in the DCP, so I guess they just have to be "2020". So i bet there are several packages with different content.


----------



## bowler

As the owner of 3 plasma TVs the latest being the Panny TC-P60ST60 I think that I'll wait a while to see how things work out. But like dholmes54 time might be running out on my upgrade as I'm in my mid 70,s. so they need to get this new stuff fixed so I can enjoy a few years of it.


----------



## kgm32

pottscb said:


> A point I think all display manufacturers should sit up and take notice of. If AVS'ers, typically the early adopters, are saying "I'll pass until they get this sorted out..." maybe they should think about ironing out the technical details before the third product cycle! (or however many TVs have been released in 4K).
> 
> If I went to my manager with a plan as half cooked as the BEST new format release in CE I'd get sacked inside the week!




Manufacturer's don't care how well cooked the released product is, its about being able to market something to make money. The marketing of UHD is easy, 4 is bigger than 1 so it MUST be better. They can put up big signs, 4K....Ultra....and the average user will easily be sold and pay hundreds if not a thousand more for the same size television regardless of the lack of technical standards or content availability. People can take it home plug it in and even if they don't or can't see a difference in picture quality they can pump up their chests and say to their friends and neighbors "4k isn't the picture great!". Same mindset for those who run out and get the latest iPhone or Samsung Galaxy... its got a bigger number it must be better.


----------



## venus933

Scott Wilkinson said:


> I want to thank you for a stimulating discussion of an important and paradoxical issue. In fact, because of your comments, I edited point #10 in the OP to be more specific: "Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend that mainstream consumers and enthusiasts with limited means wait to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two. This does not apply to fervent early adopters who replace their display every couple of years anyway; in fact, it's because of them that we see so much progress in the development of all consumer-electronics products."
> 
> Thanks again for your excellent comments!


Since essentially all high/mid level televisions are now UHD displays point #10 still needs revision IMO.

"10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend that mainstream consumers and enthusiasts with limited means wait to buy a UHD HDR/WCG capable display until the dust settles in a year or two. This does not apply to fervent early adopters who replace their display every couple of years anyway; in fact, it's because of them that we see so much progress in the development of all consumer-electronics products."

i.e., it may not be prudent to buy the televisions you mentioned in point 4 sans the Vizio R Series (reason: 384 dimming zones at a rumored $4000 price point). The only wrinkle is the LCD televisions you mentioned also have FALD.


----------



## ncted

Having recently been the victim of a Plasma that died way too early, I had the opportunity to try out a 2015 Vizio E70-C3 (1080p) with FALD (only 16 zones). While it was ok, it certainly did not come close to the picture quality and overall experience of my PN64E7000. Instead I got a 2014 Sony XBR-70X850B (UHD). It is an edge-lit with frame dimming model, but it comes very close to what my old plasma could do. I'll reiterate, I think you need to get a UHD TV today to be assured of good picture quality, not that buying a UHD set will guarantee good PQ.


----------



## Stoshie

bootman_head_fi said:


> But don't expect their entire lineup to be native 4K. That isn't happening anytime soon.


Of course not, because the content providers (cable and broadcast networks) won't be producing 4K material for a long, long time, if ever. That would require them to replace their current equipment with 4K-capable equipment, and if there isn't any demand for it, it won't happen. People wanted HD, so they provided that fairly quickly. But I don't think the same thing will happen with 4K.


----------



## torii

how many years did it take for 1080p to be adopted by cable? 10+?

is 1080p broadcast by all the networks now? if so why do I have to pay extra for it? 4k...Im just laughing my ass off really...1080p just got here


----------



## Mark12547

torii said:


> is 1080p broadcast by all the networks now? if so why do I have to pay extra for it? 4k...Im just laughing my ass off really...1080p just got here


None of the networks broadcast 1080p. HD networks broadcast either 1080i or 720p. (75% to 80% of HD channels are 1080i. Source) And even then, we have to pay extra for the privilege of receiving HD.

Over-the-air is likewise 1080i or 720p, or 480i. (Yes, we actually have a Portland, OR station that transmits 5 480i subchannels, no HD subchannel.)

I have heard rumors that some VOD content on cable is 1080p, but I haven't personally come across that. (The only VOD I had viewed was 720p or 1080i.)

Most Blu-ray discs are 1080p (but can be mastered at lower resolutions). Likewise, streaming can do 1080p, though with a significant amount of compression.


----------



## Dean McManis

There are some very good points made in this thread. A couple main issues are 4K content availability and relative cost/value.

About 6 months ago I bought a 39" 4K monitor, and even though the prospects of available 4K media were clearly worse then than they are today, the comparatively low (sub $300) price made it a no-brainer for a replacement desktop monitor.

When the 1080p projectors cost $7K-$10K and HD media choices were slim, it was a hard-sell to justify the price. But I figured that within 2-3 years that the price would drop to below $2,500, and I was surprised that soon afterwards the 1080p projector prices nipped under $1K and all upgrade excuses evaporated. 

Importantly, other advancements came along in the same newer, more affordable 1080p projectors including longer bulb life, better black levels, and contrast improvements, plus 3D (which I do not consider a passing fad).

My main screen is 180" and my viewing distance is around 7', so I am eagerly waiting for affordable 4K media to come out, and 4K projectors to drop in price. But I'm definitely going to wait until we see lower priced 4K projectors before I upgrade.

Frankly, in the shorter term, I am looking forward to getting a 4K player (PS5?) and pre-recorded 4K movies, which I'm hoping that we will see within the next year.

If you have a fast internet connection, you should definitely check out some 4K content from YouTube viewed on your 1080p display. The best 4K demo material shows off how amazing full 1080p can look when 4K media is down sampled. But that also brings to mind the issues of streaming compression artifacts, unrestored movies and TV, and poor quality movie transfers that negate all of the benefits that any higher resolution display provides.

Lastly, I have to mention 8K displays and media. Once I watched 4K media on my 4K display, imagining what 8K would look like was the first thing that popped into my head, because the detail and realism of 4K looked so good that it made me want even more. 

Of course what I really want is a Star Trek Holodeck, but I will have to take it one step at a time.


----------



## prepress

Mark12547 said:


> None of the networks broadcast 1080p. HD networks broadcast either 1080i or 720p. (75% to 80% of HD channels are 1080i. Source) And even then, we have to pay extra for the privilege of receiving HD.
> 
> Over-the-air is likewise 1080p or 720i, or 480i. (Yes, we actually have a Portland, OR station that transmits 5 480i subchannels, no HD subchannel.)
> 
> I have heard rumors that some VOD content on cable is 1080p, but I haven't personally come across that. (The only VOD I had viewed was 720p or 1080i.)
> 
> Most Blu-ray discs are 1080p (but can be mastered at lower resolutions). Likewise, streaming can do 1080p, though with a significant amount of compression.


Most BD concerts are 1080i, unless something's changed that I'm unaware of. They look good to me; I wouldn't notice any difference as long as the disc is well-produced.


----------



## CoffeeHawk

The VUDU movie service is 1080p if you select HDx (vs HD or SD). However, they only require 4.5Mbps.

Through my XboxOne I subjectively say the video it is one step below a Blu-Ray disc and the audio is 2 or 3 steps below.

http://speedtest.vudu.com/


----------



## davegreg

Thank you. It helped me a lot.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

prepress said:


> Most BD concerts are 1080i, unless something's changed that I'm unaware of. They look good to me; *I wouldn't notice any difference as long as the disc is well-produced.*


There should be a noticeable difference depending on how it is produced. If it's 1080i it's likely to be 25/30/50/60 images a second (I suppose it could also be 24 if stored with 3:2 pull-down but that's unlikely). If 30 or especially 50 or 60 you should notice smoother motion (eg. pans) than 1080p (24) on Blu-ray - but if 50/60 won't be as accurate as full res progressive at that rate (like UHD BD could). eg. If people notice a difference with the 48 fps Hobbit compared to 24 fps, a Blu-ray (at 1080i) that has 50 or 60 different images per second should also have a noticeable difference compared to 24 per second.


----------



## prepress

Joe Bloggs said:


> There should be a noticeable difference depending on how it is produced. If it's 1080i it's likely to be 25/30/50/60 images a second (I suppose it could also be 24 if stored with 3:2 pull-down but that's unlikely). If 30 or especially 50 or 60 you should notice smoother motion (eg. pans) than 1080p (24) on Blu-ray - but if 50/60 won't be as accurate as full res progressive at that rate (like UHD BD could). eg. If people notice a difference with the 48 fps Hobbit compared to 24 fps, a Blu-ray (at 1080i) that has 50 or 60 different images per second should also have a noticeable difference compared to 24 per second.


Thanks. Concerts are 1080i/60, usually. That may be why I don't notice anything amiss. The problem would have to be pretty noticeable for me to see it, since it's not something I'm looking for nor am I a trained viewer in this regard.

Also, my BDP is set to source direct; the video goes through a DVDO iScan Duo, which is set to feed the TV its desired video type. If I ever got an UHD set the Duo would be expendable, unless I wanted to keep it for the sake of my laserdisc player (that's right) which doesn't have HDMI on it.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

prepress said:


> Thanks. Concerts are 1080i/60, usually. That may be why I don't notice anything amiss. The problem would have to be pretty noticeable for me to see it, since it's not something I'm looking for nor am I a trained viewer in this regard.
> 
> Also, my BDP is set to source direct; the video goes through a DVDO iScan Duo, which is set to feed the TV its desired video type. If I ever got an UHD set the Duo would be expendable, unless I wanted to keep it for the sake of my laserdisc player (that's right) which doesn't have HDMI on it.


I'm not saying there is a problem. I'm saying there is a big noticable difference between 24 different frames per second (maximum of 1080p Blu-ray) and 60 different images per second (max of 1080i Blu-ray) - especially if properly de-interlaced. Smoother/more accurate motion isn't a problem, and motion that is over twice as smooth/accurate should be noticeable (a lot less judder than 24 fps - and probably less blur too). Of course like I said full res 60 would be more accurate but that doesn't affect that fact that if the content is encoded at 60 vs 24 images a second (the encoding format of 1080i/60 alone doesn't tell you this - since it could be less within it, eg. 30 images per second) the motion improvement should be noticeable.


----------



## prepress

Joe Bloggs said:


> I'm not saying there is a problem. I'm saying there is a big noticable difference between 24 different frames per second (maximum of 1080p Blu-ray) and 60 different images per second (max of 1080i Blu-ray) - especially if properly de-interlaced. Smoother/more accurate motion isn't a problem, and motion that is over twice as smooth/accurate should be noticeable (a lot less judder than 24 fps - and probably less blur too). Of course like I said full res 60 would be more accurate but that doesn't affect that fact that if the content is encoded at 60 vs 24 images a second (the encoding format of 1080i/60 alone doesn't tell you this - since it could be less within it, eg. 30 images per second) the motion improvement should be noticeable.


Right. I'm not having a problem with video, certainly!


----------



## IanR

Scott Wilkinson said:


> We are planning several of these "top 10" lists, and your idea of doing one on AVRs is great; thanks for the suggestion!


Scott .. here's another recent thread asking for detail on AVR functionality in the context of UHD, UHD players/upscalers, immersive audio, etc. His thread starter is more eloquent in a description of the questions needing to be answered than my suggestion to you was .. but my confusion is somewhat the same as his. Please check his thread for content before finalizing your top 10 response.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...8-can-someone-explain-me-simply-possible.html


----------



## Craig Peer

CoffeeHawk said:


> The VUDU movie service is 1080p if you select HDx (vs HD or SD). However, they only require 4.5Mbps.
> 
> Through my XboxOne I subjectively say the video it is one step below a Blu-Ray disc and the audio is 2 or 3 steps below.
> 
> http://speedtest.vudu.com/



VUDU in HDX looks excellent on my projector. Right up until my internet connection had a connection glitch. I'll stick with BR's.


----------



## machavez00

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Should you get an HD or UHD display for your home theater? There are several things to consider before making this important decision.
> 
> 1. HD has a pixel resolution of 1920x1080, while UHD (also commonly but inaccurately known as 4K) quadruples the resolution to 3840x2160, but that additional resolution does not offer much visible benefit at typical screen sizes and seating distances. (Of course, you can see a big difference at the "pixel-peeping" distance depicted above, but few people actually sit that close to their TV.)
> 
> 2. UHD will offer several other enhancements, including high dynamic range (HDR), wider color gamut (WCG), and high frame rate (HFR), but the details are still being worked out. These enhancements will have a much greater impact on image quality than increased resolution.
> 
> 3. There are several HDR systems vying for acceptance by display manufacturers and content creators, including SMPTE (the only one that's an open industry standard), Dolby Vision, Philips, Technicolor, and BBC.
> 
> 4. The only currently available consumer displays with HDR and WCG capabilities are the Samsung SUHD TVs, which implement the SMPTE HDR standard; the Vizio Reference Series will offer WCG and Dolby Vision HDR when it is released, presumably later this year. Also, the Panasonic CX850 and Sony X940C LCDs and LG EG9600 OLED are scheduled to get firmware updates that add HDR capabilities—at least for streaming content—this year.
> 
> 5. There is currently no consumer content with HDR, WCG, or HFR; Disney and Pixar have created HDR/WCG content for commercial cinema using Dolby Vision, and Fox has announced it will produce HDR content for the home market.
> 
> 6. Streaming services Amazon, M-Go, Netflix, and Vudu have announced plans to provide HDR content this year, but they could use different HDR systems. Will HDR-capable displays be able to decode multiple types of HDR signals? We don't know yet.
> 
> 7. The only way to stream UHD content at this point is via the display's built-in apps, the Sony FMP-X10 UHD server, or the Nvidia Shield streaming box; a Roku UHD streaming box is under development, as are others, I'm sure.
> 
> 8. Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs will support the SMPTE, Dolby Vision, and Philips HDR systems as well as WCG when they—and the players needed to play them—start shipping by the end of this year. Those players should also support UHD streaming, presumably with HDR and WCG if available. To play UHD content with HDR from an outboard device, both the device and display must support HDMI 2.0a.
> 
> 9. Many people argue that a UHDTV can make HD look much better than it does on an HDTV, but that depends on the quality of the display's upscaler, and many others maintain that the increased resolution by itself does not improve the picture quality very much at typical screen sizes and seating distances.
> 
> 10. Because of all the current uncertainty, I generally recommend that mainstream consumers and enthusiasts with limited means wait to buy a UHD display until the dust settles in a year or two. This recommendation does not necessarily apply to fervent early adopters who replace their display every couple of years anyway; in fact, it's because of them that we see so much progress in the development of all consumer-electronics products.
> 
> Like AVS Forum on Facebook
> Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
> +1 AVS Forum on Google+


I searched the thread and did not see this mentioned yet. Diretcv does have some 4k content available to those with Samsung 4K smart RVU sets.


----------



## The4elements89

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I'm desperately seeking some answers! I have a pioneer vsx21txh and I've had my Xbox one hooked up through it for awhile now and out of nowhere I have no video but I do have sound?? It's driving me mad, sometimes I can turn it off and back on and it will blink on quick then go to black


----------



## NorthSky

The4elements89 said:


> Hi, I'm new to this forum. I'm desperately seeking some answers! I have a pioneer vsx21txh and I've had my Xbox one hooked up through it for awhile now and out of nowhere I have no video but I do have sound?? It's driving me mad, sometimes I can turn it off and back on and it will blink on quick then go to black


Replace your HDMI cable.


----------



## Yoti

Great read I often hear many enthusiast suggesting 4K is here and regardless it will stay !

I tend to feel 4K and hdr are still new tech and may not even kick off but with the above in mind guess I am 100% wrong well in the production sense I guess.

Until we see 4K blurays with hdr logos and in the thousands in shops and online then id consider it a success


----------



## arabella

I have just recently bought a Samsung UE65JU7000 and a Denon AVR-X7200W.
I've followed all the AVS forum instructions to set up the display and I'm very pleased with the results.
I know there will be plenty of people out there who will baulk at my choice of hardware and the timing of a UHD purchase but I'll argue that it's subjective and it'll do for the next couple of years before I upgrade again.


----------



## ccguy

I am in the market for a new TV. Not because I really need to have the latest and greatest but because an interior designer finally told my wife the entertainment armoire that limited the size of the screen in the biggest room in the house doesn't work in the room and suggested, get this, "we should get a really big screen and wall mount it". I wanted to kiss that woman!

Anyway, the 46" is being relegated to the kids playroom for the wii and I am in the market for a 65"-70" screen. I do not consider myself an early adopter and by no means am I likely to replace whatever I buy for several years (as long as it lasts really), but I don't want to shortchange myself by buying a 1080 set should there end up being a decent range of 4k content in the next couple of years. 

If 4k wasn't so new, no problem. If I had my way I'd buy a cheap large 1080 set and upgrade to 4k when the standards are set and the content is there but I know unless I can spend under $1k, the wife isn't going to be so open to an upgrade for years past when I will be ready. I'd just wait awhile but I need to strike when the iron's hot, before she finds other places to spend that money and decides that 46" is plenty big enough so why don't we just hang that on the wall.

So what to do?
Is a wide range of 4k content really just around the corner, or I'd it still years away and I won't even care that I can't watch what little is available with the "best picture possible"?


----------



## Lakesideb

Scott Wilkinson said:


> Not necessarily; it all depends on what's in the signal and what the display can decode. For example, I saw Tomorrowland in both HDR and SDR; the SDR version looked considerably worse, and that was at the same resolution as the HDR version (4K). Granted, I don't know if Dolby Vision for commercial cinema works the same as it does for consumer TVs (that is, dual layer), but I would assume so. Also, I don't know if Disney released one DCP for both types of theaters, expecting the SDR projectors to ignore the HDR metadata, or if they did two separate DCPs graded accordingly. As I said in the OP and elsewhere, I believe that increased resolution offers the least amount of benefit comapred with 1080p. WCG offers more benefit compared with BT.709, but exactly how that will be conveyed and decoded remains an open question as far as I know.


Thanks for a brilliant threat. Very helpful.


----------



## GregLee

It's not all about watching UHD source. There is so little UHD source available that I am interested in watching, that it would make no sense to pay extra for a UHD display just for the sake of watching UHD source. However, despite the fact that I watch around 98% HD from DirecTV, which is 1080i, I am very happy that I bought a Samsung SUHD set back in March. Viewed from straight in front, the picture quality of the better satellite 1080i channels is much, much better than it was with my 2013 model 1080p plasma set. (Viewed from an angle, though, pq is worse.)


----------



## brwnsfan

Hi, I'm coming into this discussion very late. As much as I like technology--I'm much more critical of music than video-- I'm also slow at times to jump onto the newest. My viewing space and display space is limited and I can't really handle much more than a 50 or 55 inch display . We watch from a distance of about 12 feet by the way. 

At this point I think I'm going to go with a really high-quality 1080P set and drop the old DLP into the basement. Maybe in a couple of years I will drop this new set into the basement and replace it with a 4K set. 

Also, we watched the Walking Dead the other night at a friends house on his 4K set. My wife was distracted by it. Several people later said that they didn't really like the set, that it was almost too sharp and one said it gave her a headache. I know the content that we watched matters, but the realism was almost freakishly sharp, it looked like the actors were in the room with you. Is this response normal to your first 4K viewing experience?

So, what would be the highest quality 1080 P smart TV that you think I should get at this point coming in a 50 or 55 inch size? 

Thanks


----------



## Bepaof8

brwnsfan said:


> ...we watched the Walking Dead the other night at a friends house on his 4K set. My wife was distracted by it. Several people later said that they didn't really like the set, that it was almost too sharp and one said it gave her a headache. I know the content that we watched matters, but the realism was almost freakishly sharp, it looked like the actors were in the room with you. Is this response normal to your first 4K viewing experience?
> Thanks


Sounds like "Soap Opera Effect". The 4k TV wasn't set up correctly. Everything you watch looks like it's a live set - like daytime soaps.

Remember when you saw poorly set-up 1080p TVs at Best Buy? It's like that.

4k TVs upconvert everything to 4k - the viewed material doesn't have to be 4k beforehand. Remember how good upconverted DVDs looked on a 1080p TV? It takes some pretty crappy source material to NOT look good upconverted to 4k! But see one that is properly set up!

Love my Sony XBR-70X850B!


----------



## brwnsfan

Thank you, now I understand what people mean when they refer to Soap Opera Effect, makes sense.

I'm ready to pull the trigger on a Samsung UN55JS7000FXZA from Best Buy. Obviously I've been doing some watching and decided to go SUHD.

How do I NOT get this effect, something to do with the Auto Motion setting?

Man, I am so far behind on things, it happens when you pay cash for a daughters college tuition. Cash flow has been crimped for some time, ready to open up again.


----------



## Bepaof8

"How do I NOT get this effect, something to do with the Auto Motion setting?"

With a Sony 4k TV, the setting responsible is called "MotionFlow", and it needs to be set at "True Cinema", or at least "Standard" to avoid SOA. It has something to do with Motion Interpolation.

With a Samsung, the setting responsible is called "Auto Motion Plus". I'm not sure what it is supposed to be set to, but I found my setting here on the Sony XBR-70X850B thread. I also found some good advice on what TV to buy at this web site, too. Its a good place to make sure you're getting the best TV for you!


----------



## 2WheelsWillTravel

I picked up my 60" 1080P sony last year after shopping next to the 4K's. Couldn't see using any 4K content for some years down the road.


----------



## mihinomenest4536

wow, that's a pretty stark difference between HD and 4K. makes me think my 1080i samsung is a piece of trash now. haha


----------



## mihinomenest4536

2WheelsWillTravel said:


> I picked up my 60" 1080P sony last year after shopping next to the 4K's. Couldn't see using any 4K content for some years down the road.


that's what i thought, too. but something tells me our 1080 tvs might be obsolete faster than we thought.


----------



## 2WheelsWillTravel

mihinomenest4536 said:


> that's what i thought, too. but something tells me our 1080 tvs might be obsolete faster than we thought.


other than the HD blu rays and certain streaming content I don't see anything else changing very soon. Broadcast is still below 1080P, cable companies are still offering SD as the standard cable box which is asinine. I'm paying an extra ten bucks a month for a "HD Technology" fee.

Current gen game consoles struggle to even do 60 FPS at 1080P. Decent 4K gaming requires expensive setups that most people aren't going to want to bother with. 

The biggest hurdle is infrastructure. There are numerous areas of the US where internet is complete garbage. My folks only have access to awful DSL which can barely handle 480P youtube videos. The only 4K they might get is buying blu-rays or whatever a satellite provider can deliver.

I think it'll be at least a minimum of another 2 years before you can call 4K "standard" by any means. By then the 8K tv's will be rolling out.


----------



## ccguy

ccguy said:


> I am in the market for a new TV. Not because I really need to have the latest and greatest but because an interior designer finally told my wife the entertainment armoire that limited the size of the screen in the biggest room in the house doesn't work in the room and suggested, get this, "we should get a really big screen and wall mount it". I wanted to kiss that woman!
> 
> Anyway, the 46" is being relegated to the kids playroom for the wii and I am in the market for a 65"-70" screen. I do not consider myself an early adopter and by no means am I likely to replace whatever I buy for several years (as long as it lasts really), but I don't want to shortchange myself by buying a 1080 set should there end up being a decent range of 4k content in the next couple of years.
> 
> If 4k wasn't so new, no problem. If I had my way I'd buy a cheap large 1080 set and upgrade to 4k when the standards are set and the content is there but I know unless I can spend under $1k, the wife isn't going to be so open to an upgrade for years past when I will be ready. I'd just wait awhile but I need to strike when the iron's hot, before she finds other places to spend that money and decides that 46" is plenty big enough so why don't we just hang that on the wall.
> 
> So what to do?
> Is a wide range of 4k content really just around the corner, or I'd it still years away and I won't even care that I can't watch what little is available with the "best picture possible"?


Update: After reading here, rtings, cnet and elsewhere until I was more confused than when I started. I made like my 5th visit to Best Buy in the last few week, this time to really look at the models I had narrowed down to (all 65": Vizio E & M, Sammy 6300 and Sony KDL-850) I didn't even look at them from closer than I'll be sitting at 14ft. 

First thing, it may not be the resolution per se but from even from 15+ft! The Vizio M-65 looked WAY better than any of the 1080 options. Problem was, nearly every other 4K set to my eye looked so much better than the M. Of course they weren't showing anything with really dark scenes to see if the backlit local dimming made the difference. 
The solution to my dilemma came when I noticed the newly reduced price on the Samsung 65J8500. It's a bit above where I was hoping to keep the purchase to keep the option to upgrade sooner to an OLED but I have to say the picture was so close to the OLED 10ft away I might be ok waiting an extra couple of years. So I'm going to wait until a little closer to Black Friday to see if there is another price drop (on the advice of the Magnolia salesman) but it looks like that will be the one.
So from my perspective, it may not be time yet to upgrade a good 1080 but if you are buying a tv anyway, if a mid-range or better 4K is in your budget there is no reason to wait on 4K.


----------



## green9206

Am still using my 720p tv. I don't need to have the latest technology. Maybe because i can't afford the latest technology either. Also because 720p looks good enough to me.


----------



## Mark12547

green9206 said:


> Am still using my 720p tv. I don't need to have the latest technology. Maybe because i can't afford the latest technology either. Also because 720p looks good enough to me.


I use a 32-in "720 class" display (native: 1366x768) for cable, and a 50-in 1080p for most Blu-ray, DVD and streaming. I probably won't upgrade for some time, but in my case it's these eyes and ears that would likely _not_ benefit from UHD at my typical viewing distances and desired screen sizes until an improved color gambit becomes widely available.

From time to time I think I would like a larger screen for cable, but when watching The Flash or an old Godzilla movie where Godzilla's breath of fire fills half the screen, I become thankful that I am not magnifying the macroblocking even further via a larger screen.  So I am in no hurry to replace the 32-in TV.

I still keep my eye on threads like this because one never knows when a TV will give up the ghost (the reason behind most of my TV purchases), but if I don't have to go through the teething stage of device interoperability and disc compatibility shake-down, I would rather leave that to the early adopters.


----------



## ray0414

ccguy said:


> Update: After reading here, rtings, cnet and elsewhere until I was more confused than when I started. I made like my 5th visit to Best Buy in the last few week, this time to really look at the models I had narrowed down to (all 65": Vizio E & M, Sammy 6300 and Sony KDL-850) I didn't even look at them from closer than I'll be sitting at 14ft.
> 
> First thing, it may not be the resolution per se but from even from 15+ft! The Vizio M-65 looked WAY better than any of the 1080 options. Problem was, nearly every other 4K set to my eye looked so much better than the M. Of course they weren't showing anything with really dark scenes to see if the backlit local dimming made the difference.
> The solution to my dilemma came when I noticed the newly reduced price on the Samsung 65J8500. It's a bit above where I was hoping to keep the purchase to keep the option to upgrade sooner to an OLED but I have to say the picture was so close to the OLED 10ft away I might be ok waiting an extra couple of years. So I'm going to wait until a little closer to Black Friday to see if there is another price drop (on the advice of the Magnolia salesman) but it looks like that will be the one.
> So from my perspective, it may not be time yet to upgrade a good 1080 but if you are buying a tv anyway, if a mid-range or better 4K is in your budget there is no reason to wait on 4K.




You definitely have a good eye. And congrats on not being totally fooled by CNET etc. Virtually everyone that owns a 4k set will tell u there definitely a difference despite what some CNET articles say.

Bottom line is that the mid to upper 4k sets are coming with better picture enhancing tools than the now lower 1080p models.

And yes the js8500 is a very solid tv, especially for that price. And wait til you start watching HDR. That's where it really blows out 1080P.

The content thing is really just about a non factor now too: (these are built in apps in the tvs)

-Amazon has a big selection of 4k/hdr tv shows/movies that is growing at a decent rate.

-netflix also has quite a few 4k shows and is expected to start adding HDR in january possibly.

- Ultraflix signed a ginormous deal with paramount, bringing 950 movies to the 4k app, all in 4k and will be adding hdr soon too. By far the biggest movie library in 4k, and lots and lots of blockbuster movies from the 80s all the way til recent. 


Let's not forgot that uhd blu ray launches in like 2 months.


----------



## leedesert

So I'm buying a new 60-65" for our new home next month. Should I get a 4k or save money with a quality 1080p set? What's going to be the wisest investment?


----------



## CoffeeHawk

leedesert said:


> So I'm buying a new 60-65" for our new home next month. Should I get a 4k or save money with a quality 1080p set? What's going to be the wisest investment?


It's not about being wise at this time, it's about money or quality. Can you be happy with a 1080p for the next 5 or more years...I don't know how often you budget for a new TV. Everyone also has to consider HDCP2.2 and full 18Gbps HDMI 2.0. I don't know the status as of today, but this article will get you thinking and there's probably threads on AVS that can get you up to date information. http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...-2-0-hdcp-2-2-capable-4k-lcd-list-thread.html

Coincidentally the latest Panasonic which appears to be 4k future proof is only getting mediocre reviews even with a full calibration.


----------



## leedesert

Good to know. I'll keep this in mind as I'm looking for my components.


----------



## thomasfxlt

CoffeeHawk said:


> It's not about being wise at this time, it's about money or quality. Can you be happy with a 1080p for the next 5 or more years...I don't know how often you budget for a new TV. Everyone also has to consider HDCP2.2 and full 18Gbps HDMI 2.0. I don't know the status as of today, but this article will get you thinking and there's probably threads on AVS that can get you up to date information. http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...-2-0-hdcp-2-2-capable-4k-lcd-list-thread.html
> 
> Coincidentally the latest Panasonic which appears to be 4k future proof is only getting mediocre reviews even with a full calibration.


This is good advice. I'll only add that there are some really great 4k sets at 60-70" available now for really good prices. If you are viewing good source material, you will be happy. The cable, satellite and internet options are improving for HD and 4k rapidly. I think we're in the "leap forward" stage and the next 6-12 months will make owning a 4k set start to look smart. So much of what's available on Xfinity or Direct is looking really good. The pressure is on to deliver clean, digital signals. Even this season the heavily compressed football broadcasts are starting to disappear. I am rarely disappointed when I spend a nite in front of my set.


----------



## leedesert

I was reading on Best Buy's website that they upgrade all their 4k TV's to 2.2 automatically, its part of the price. When I look on Amazon there is no mention of anything like that so what should I do while shopping?
I want to make sure everything is 2.2 compliant because I always buy the best I can so it will last 3 to 5 years minimum.


----------



## gomo657

leedesert said:


> I was reading on Best Buy's website that they upgrade all their 4k TV's to 2.2 automatically, its part of the price. When I look on Amazon there is no mention of anything like that so what should I do while shopping?
> 
> I want to make sure everything is 2.2 compliant because I always buy the best I can so it will last 3 to 5 years minimum.



Please link to that false claim there's no magic elixir to upgrade to 2.2 it either contains the proper hardware or not. Plenty purchased the first generation sets that can't accept 4K streaming then second generation that accept streaming but not capable of........ HD guru has a good list of the capabilities of current sets but there's no guarantee even those are future proof.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## leedesert

gomo657 said:


> Please link to that false claim there's no magic elixir to upgrade to 2.2 it either contains the proper hardware or not. Plenty purchased the first generation sets that can't accept 4K streaming then second generation that accept streaming but not capable of........ HD guru has a good list of the capabilities of current sets but there's no guarantee even those are future proof.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It's not a false claim, they upgrade the hardware before you purchase.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Home-Pr...de/pcmcat332700050000.c?id=pcmcat332700050000

Not All 4K TVs Are Created Equal

While this advancement in TV technology is very exciting, some manufacturers may release TVs with less developed technology at discounted prices. That's why it's important to understand the technologies within your 4K Ultra HD TV, whether they'll allow you to stay future proof as 4K standards change, and whether they'll allow you to watch all available content in 4K now and in the future.

All 4K Ultra HD TVs at Best Buy will be equipped with HEVC/H.265 (High Efficiency Video Coding). This allows the demanding size of 4K content to be compressed and streamed over the Internet. This is critically important, because for now, 4K content can only be streamed or downloaded. In addition, all Netflix 4K content requires HEVC to be built into the TV.
Upscaling the picture quality of all your current movies and TV shows to near-4K Ultra HD quality is a fantastic feature, and Best Buy is committed to carrying 4K Ultra HD TVs that offer the finest upscaling. Keep in mind that some 4K TVs sold elsewhere won't be able to upscale at all.
All 4K Ultra HD TVs at Best Buy will have HDCP 2.2 installed, which will help future-proof your TV and ensure you can view all 4K content now and in the future.
Newer high-speed HDMI cable allows for 4K content to be displayed all the way up to 60fps, which is the highest frame-per-second rate available. All UHD TVs currently at Best Buy have this 60fps capability.
Overall, you can purchase your 4K Ultra HD TV with confidence at Best Buy. All of our current 4K TVs have passed our strict requirements for a high-quality 4K picture, premier upscaling of content, future proofing through software updates, and the ability to display all available 4K content today and in the future.


----------



## gomo657

They appear to be saying they don't offer any sets not 2.2 I wouldn't purchase a new set expecting some moron from BB opening the back doing an upgrade. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## leedesert

Actually I looked at the 4k TVs on their website and they're the same models available everywhere that do not come with 2.2.


----------



## acras13

I'm laughing at the image of a "geek Squad" member cracking open Tv's in the back room and soldering new HDMI boards in sets , then flashing the proper firmware to support 2.2 . Around here even in the "Magnolia" high end section their idea of "calibrating" is hanging the set on the wall and making sure it is in fact in dynamic mode. Most of the high end sets look like complete garbage , I don't know how they sell $5000+ sets when they look worse than the $400-$600 sets at costco because of set up and content .


----------



## Onigiri

Thanks for the info, Ill be in the market for a new one this BF.


----------



## kentg

Im glad I found this place again from a while back and even more glad I read this thread.
Im currently forcing myself to not to go into BB. I have been looking at the LG OLED 9500. I want the 65" but my budget will not allow it so the 55" will have to do. I watch from around 8'-10' so I dont think Id be giving up that much.
At this moment I have a fully functional and clear as the day I bought it Pioneer elite. Its a 720p and comparing it to the 40" Sony Bravia 108p in my man cave the Pioneer has such a quality of the color and blacks watching the same content its still beautiful. 
The 4K displays in the BB and elsewhere are stunning but Im still on the fence. Im leaning to waiting for the next years model to come out and decide. 
The whole usb 2.2 thing has me concerned as well since so few options have it and I was told buy a Samsung rep at the BB that there will be some kind of upgrade box available for the ones that are 2.0. Dont know if thats true or not.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

kentg said:


> The whole* usb 2.2* thing has me concerned as well since so few options have it and I was told buy a Samsung rep at the BB that there will be some kind of upgrade box available for the ones that are 2.0. Dont know if thats true or not.


I think it's HDMI that's up to version 2.0, with HDCP (copy protection) that's version 2.2.


----------



## MRG1

DirecTV advertises some UHD content:

http://www.directv.com/technology/4k

Mostly sports. If I remember right, some of the last Olympics were available in UHD.

I presume the big deal for 4K is games (or will the 3D virtual reality stuff mostly come first?) and more so, as better computer monitors. For TV? Who cares?

(Though I admit I sometimes zoom HD in to read newspaper text, etc., when it appears on screen. Otherwise SD is fine.)

I think HD became big only because the FCC forced the SD phase out. Assuming that the FCC's major goal was to free up broadcast bandwidth so they could auction it to wireless companies (thereby increasing FCC fee-paid income, thereby increasing the number of FCC employees that FCC administrators oversee, thereby increasing FCC administrator pay grade), they have no motivation to push UHD and kill HD in the same way.

So different from color TV, which really caught on big-time, because people really, really wanted it - though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television says that it took almost 20 years for color TV sales to surpass B&W TVs, due to cost and availability of programming. Is there any reason for UHD to become dominant faster?

I suppose that major Internet companies, like Comcast, have good reason to push UHD and higher res video... The more bandwidth people need, the more they can sell. But it's a hard sell, when so many people watch TV on their pocket-size smart-phones.

If you have unlimited money, here's an idea. Get a Google Pixel XL smartphone, with a 2560 x 1440 resolution. Not quite 4K, but getting there. And get a magnifying glass, so you can tell the difference.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

MRG1 said:


> *I think HD became big only because the FCC forced the SD phase out*. Assuming that the FCC's major goal was to free up broadcast bandwidth so they could auction it to wireless companies (thereby increasing FCC fee-paid income, thereby increasing the number of FCC employees that FCC administrators oversee, thereby increasing FCC administrator pay grade), they have no motivation to push UHD and kill HD in the same way.


They phased out analogue. The companies could still broadcast SD in digital.


----------



## Mark12547

MRG1 said:


> *I think HD became big only because the FCC forced the SD phase out.* Assuming that the FCC's major goal was to free up broadcast bandwidth so they could auction it to wireless companies (thereby increasing FCC fee-paid income, thereby increasing the number of FCC employees that FCC administrators oversee, thereby increasing FCC administrator pay grade), they have no motivation to push UHD and kill HD in the same way.





Joe Bloggs said:


> They phased out analogue. The companies could still broadcast SD in digital.


My recollection was that it was realized that if we would get OTA HD, we would have to switch to digital. However, stations were not _required_ to go HD, just to digital, and they could continue broadcasting SD if they so wished. (In fact, today there are a number of multicast networks that are primarily SD that ride the subchannels of major broadcast stations.)

However, the FCC does have a web page that makes me think MRG1 wasn't too far off (other than trying to grow the FCC):

https://www.fcc.gov/general/digital-television


> An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum have been freed up for public safety communications by groups such as police, fire departments and rescue squads. Also, some of the spectrum has been auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with advanced wireless services, such as wireless broadband.


Back in the heyday of the transition, the intent was to convert all stations to digital, and Congress was willing to put up tax dollars to support part of the transition effort with a coupon system for buying converter boxes so TVs with analog (NTSC) tuners could receive digital (ATSC) broadcasts.

I really don't expect Congress to be willing to fund converter boxes for an ATSC 1 to ATSC 3 transition, so I don't expect OTA UltraHD to be more than just a niche for a long time. But pay providers (cable, satellite, or even encrypted OTA) as well as streaming and UltraHD Blu-ray may end up being the major sources of UltraHD content, leaving OTA being mostly HD with SD subchannels.

But then I am no stranger to being wrong.


----------



## MRG1

OK, I should have said NTSC (the analog broadcast standard) rather than SD. Most of the stations near me have sub-channel 1 at HD (720p or 1080i), along with several SD (480i) sub-channels. A few don't have any HD sub-channels. In that sense, SD is alive and well in my area.



Mark12547 said:


> However, the FCC does have a web page that makes me think MRG1 wasn't too far off (other than trying to grow the FCC):


Why don't you think the FCC's main goal was to grow the FCC, and with it, FCC administrator salaries?

In a capitalist economy, which the U.S. more or less has, everyone is effectively encouraged to maximize their income. In U.S. government work in general, administrators are economically rewarded for growing their departments. In fact, if they don't, the administrators over THEM in turn will give them bad reviews. This is perfectly normal and logical - as most people who deal with government agencies recognize. (I was never in a U.S. government agency, but I was a contractor to a government agency for 25 years, and these tendencies were very obvious.) If you analyze and predict government policy in terms of maximizing administrator income, you will usually be right. 

BTW, that isn't exactly corruption, because it is the way the system is designed to work. Economic carrots and sticks are used to regulate employee behaviour. Employees who don't follow the "correct" patterns are treated as problems.

There is a facet I didn't mention. The FCC is one of a few U.S. government agencies that is "fee paid": They get no money from congress or the general budget or the general treasury. Everything they get comes from user fees. The more user fees (and auction income) from the regulated industries that they can collect, the bigger their programs can become, and the better FCC administrator pay grades can be.

I would guess that wireless services generate more FCC income than TV broadcast channels - because the FCC has been systematically looting TV broadcast spectrum, and giving it over to wireless services.


----------



## richlife

leedesert said:


> So I'm buying a new 60-65" for our new home next month. Should I get a 4k or save money with a quality 1080p set? What's going to be the wisest investment?


At about this time last year (so it was likely a Black Friday promo), I bought a 4K 55" Vizio (see sig) for about $800. It supports (and I use HDMI 2.2). It got great reviews for picture quality and explicit tuning instructions are available. It replaced my 2 yr old LG 55" 3D Smart TV as my main screen because, despite no real source support, the out-of-the-box upscaled picture is better. I realize this thread and post are a year old, but I wanted to point out that without a huge outlay, there are good option for going with 4K/UHD over 1080p.

I paid too much for the LG (good price, but just didn't get the longevity).  I replaced it with the much less expensive Vizio, but like @leedesert, I'm already in the market for a new 65" as part of my HT upgrade which has included the RX-A3060, ATMOS/DTS:X, and will also include (probably) the new Oppo UHD player (yet to be released). These latter two updates will be dependent on the status of HDR developments.

But meanwhile, I'm very pleased with my Vizio.

Thanks for the great topic and info, Scott.


----------



## forsaken13

Would like to know whether Epson 6040ub 4k enhancement is enough or is it necessary to get the new Sony 675es with true 4k for proper 4k gaming and movies.... Would like your suggestion thank you very much!


----------



## DJSpeed

Size matters... I think Most people prefer HDR to 4k as the biggest difference anyway.


----------

