Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

1080p vs 4K TVs
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=105907
Page 1 of 2

Author:  badrogue17 [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  1080p vs 4K TVs

Rogues are in the market for a new TV. I know 4K is all the rage now but is there a huge difference between the two? The 1080's are so much cheaper but are they still worth getting ? Besides telling me to move, suggestions ?

Author:  Ron Wolfley [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

I know Microsoft and Sony are coming out with new game systems next year catering to 4k resolution.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

4K TV's are amazing, they even up-convert some 1080p content to look incredibly sharp. Thing is, if picture hiccups bother you--they call it "jitter", because 4K TV's operate at 60fps, but most content is 30 or 24fps, so sometimes the doubled framerate can make moving pictures look jagged instead of smooth--then you need to buy one of the higher-end 4K TV's. The Samsung KS8000 series doesn't have that problem (neither does LG's B series OLED TV's, but those are insanely expensive), but the KS6000 series does. Same goes for the Vizio series of panels: their D-series panels have tearing and jittering issues, but their P-series don't. The 6000 and D series TV's are the ones you'll see at attractive prices on Amazon or at Sam's Club.

Regularly-available 4K content will be here soon (streaming, blu-ray, gaming, and some sports stuff on DirecTV), and even up-converted 1080i cable feeds look pretty alright, so future-proofing now is not a bad idea at all, you just may have to spend a bit more to ensure you're not upgrading in a year or two.

Author:  IkeSouth [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

4k is the way to go, if your tv is 50in+

smaller tv's it doesnt make a difference

but 4k makes it impossible to see the pixelation and it really does make it better. even with 1080p content, the tv will upscale it and it looks awesome.

i dont worry about the jitter. i never notice it.

Author:  pittmike [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Ike you bitch about your finances all the time and you're sitting in front of a 4K giving expert reviews?

Author:  Drunk Squirrel [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

My plasma crapped out a few weeks ago and I updated to a 4K Samsung. I think it's the 8000 series. My main complaint is that it is unnaturally bright and it was almost blinding first time I watched hockey in it. Also not as smooth as the plasma was. I loved the oled but I just couldnt justify the cost.

Author:  billypootons [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

if you are shopping for 60" or smaller tv... and you dont even know what 4k means.... you should be shopping for a 1080p LED tv... (not 4k)

it seems like you are the type of person that can wait on 4k.... right now it feels like you really have to seek 4k content.... sure netflix is making more and more available... cable/satelite providers have barely begun to roll any 4k content out... plus HDR is the new craze so if you do shop for a 4k set you'll want it to be HDR compatible... but again, if you have no idea what 4k is, you are not a person who should be buying a 4k tv

make sure whatever LED tv you get has a refresh rate of at least 120 hz.... most companies lie and artificially double the actual TV's refresh rate with some jargon version of refresh rate... if the rate on the box is at least 240 hz you likely have at least a 120 hz native refresh rate and you are good to go. refresh rate is critical for live sports (basically anything with lots of quick movement will look pixelated if your set has a crap refresh rate)

Author:  Scooter [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

1966 Magnivox wonderful picture.

Author:  Caller Bob [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Have you checked out the team @ Daaaaaaaaaa Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttlllllleeeeeeeeeeeeee Guuuuyssss

http://thelittleguys.com/

And tell them, Nort sent ya!

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Scooter wrote:
1966 Magnivox wonderful picture.


Rabbit ears?

Author:  lipidquadcab [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Ron Wolfley wrote:
I know Microsoft and Sony are coming out with new game systems next year catering to 4k resolution.

Sony already has a system out (PS4 Pro) that does 4K...results vary on how good the game runs when you are actually viewing at 4K.

Microsoft just released the "final" specs for Scorpio and it sounds like they should be able to do 4K/60FPS with power to spare. Of course, I'm not sure what games Microsoft is planning on using to sell the system but hey, I'm sure the new Forza game will look amazing! :?

Author:  Tad Queasy [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

The Wirecutter does pretty comprehensive reviews/comparisons of gadgets and gear. Here are their picks for Best TV:

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-tv/

I've got a 46" Panasonic plasma that I bought nine years ago that I'm still happy with so I haven't really kept up with new TV technology. This article was linked in the above review:

https://www.cnet.com/news/when-should-y ... o-a-4k-tv/

cnet wrote:
If you're happy with your TV, keep it. But if your TV is getting old and you're curious how much better modern TVs are, this guide should be able to help you out.

What we've done is break it down by type and age of the TV, and given a recommendation about whether you should consider upgrading.
Should you upgrade at all?

Generally speaking, if your TV works and you're happy with it, don't worry about upgrading.

We're a long way off from the majority of TV shows and movies being in 4K resolution, let alone high-dynamic range (HDR), wide color gamut (WCG) or any other widespread change in content that would "require" a new TV. If and when those things happen, 4K TVs will be even cheaper than they are now. And they're pretty cheap already.

Which isn't to say there isn't content, there is and it's growing (both 4K and 4K HDR). It's just a small sub-set of what's out there, which is still mostly 1080p high-def, not 4K.

Even without 4K content, however, buying a 4K TV now makes sense if you actually do want to upgrade. One reason is because 4K TVs usually deliver better picture quality, with any source, than non-4K models (for reasons that have nothing to do with resolution). This is especially true with HDR models.

So, if you have a...
LCD without local dimming: Maybe upgrade

Most LCDs more than a few years old don't have local dimming, our favorite picture-enhancing feature for LCD TVs. It allows the TV to control brightness in different areas of the screen. Modern LCDs with local dimming will look more real, have more apparent depth, and have more "punch." The top of the line models will have HDR and WCG, which can look really amazing.

Depending on the age of your current LCD TV , and of course what 4K TV you end up buying, the difference may be significant. Of all the categories of TVs we're talking about here, this is one of the ones I'd be most likely to recommend upgrading from, especially if you're looking for something larger.

If you step up to OLED, the difference will be profound.
LCD with local dimming: Don't upgrade
More TV research

How HDR works
Why 4K TVs aren't stupid (anymore)
The truth about Ultra HD 4K TV refresh rates
Can I upgrade my TV to HDR?
What is HDMI 2.0a?

With few exceptions, local dimming LCDs look pretty good. Most of the ones with a full-array (as opposed to edge-lit) local dimming look pretty great. Many edge-lit models look good too.

True, the HDR and WCG capabilities of modern LCDs will make them look a bit better, and OLED even more so, but the difference won't be as significant as if you were upgrading from some of the other TVs on this list. Generally, I'd say save your money.
Plasma TV (2008 or newer): Don't upgrade

This is especially true if you still have a Pioneer Kuro or one of the last Panasonic or Samsung plasmas from 2012 or 2013. These later generation plasmas still look fantastic compared to most LCDs. Sure, OLED looks even better, but they're still a lot of money.

Once HDR and WCG content becomes more commonplace, then an upgrade is worth considering. Until then, enjoy your awesome TV.
Plasma TV (2007 or older): Maybe upgrade

Again, if you're happy with your TV, keep it. The older the plasma is, the less it holds up compared to modern TVs. LCDs with local dimming will certainly be brighter than old plasmas, and might even have better contrast ratios. LCD's motion blur might be acceptable (depending on the refresh rate), though off-axis (how far you can sit off to the side and still enjoy the image) will likely be far worse on a modern LCD.

The closest comparison to modern TVs will be OLED, but again, they're pretty expensive. So I could see this going either way. A new TV will certainly "wow" you, but your current TV is probably pretty good.
Rear-projection TV: Probably upgrade

I'm surprised you're still able to buy lamps for your TV. Most new LCDs and OLEDs will be far brighter, and have a better contrast ratio than just about any RPTV (CRT models excepted). If you have a DLP-based model though, the motion resolution on it will be way better than an LCD or OLED.
CRT 'tube' TV: Probably upgrade

I'm impressed with your ability to keep a TV running, but modern TVs will be bigger and brighter, OLEDs will have a better contrast ratio. If you ever need to replace your Blu-ray player or media streamer, most of the latest models only have HDMI (which your TV probably doesn't have).
Front projector: Don't upgrade

If your projector is from the pre-3D era, new projectors are likely a lot brighter. Unless you're really well heeled, they're still just 1080p though. If you're really feeling the itch to upgrade, I'd recommend getting a new projector over a 4K TV. In fact, getting a new display that's smaller than your current display is almost always a bad idea. It will see so small, especially compared to a projector.
Bottom line

As usual when someone asks, "Should I get a new ___?" the best answer is "It depends on what you already have."

By the way, if you're thinking of upgrading the size of your current TV, that's worth considering. I don't think I've ever met someone who regretted getting a larger TV.

Author:  jimmypasta [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Wow,a lot of great advice on here (for once)! :lol:

I just shitcanned my 65 " Mitsubishi rear projection TV about 6 months ago.
It ran flawlessly for almost 14 years! It still worked but my eyes were telling me the picture quality had fallen behind the more current sets. I have a 43" SHARP 4K in one bedroom that has an excellent picture.

We ended up buying a 65" Sony (model 850D) that is astounding. I went to ABT. Ask the salesman to connect to Youtube and watch a 4k nature video. Nothing more will need to be said about quality of picture. My wife & I are constantly blown away by the beautiful colors on a movie like Disney's Moana.

Author:  Douchebag [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Drunk Squirrel wrote:
My plasma crapped out a few weeks ago and I updated to a 4K Samsung. I think it's the 8000 series. My main complaint is that it is unnaturally bright and it was almost blinding first time I watched hockey in it. Also not as smooth as the plasma was. I loved the oled but I just couldnt justify the cost.

I bought a 4k Samsung last year and I would agree on the brightness. The whites really pop out at you. That would be an issue with hockey ice.

Author:  But Obama [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

pittmike wrote:
Ike you bitch about your finances all the time and you're sitting in front of a 4K giving expert reviews?




While President Barack Obama claims that low-income Americans work just as hard as their wealthy counterparts, that simply isn't true, says Stephen Moore, a distinguished visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

"A limited amount of people in poor households work somewhat hard at low wages to take care of their families, no doubt about that," he and Heritage Foundation research associate Joel Griffith write in The Washington Times.

"Yet all poor families don't work nearly as much as the rich families do. And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."

For every hour worked by those in a low-income household, those in a wealthy household toil half an hour because they're smarter.

"The idea that the rich are idle bondholders who play golf or go to the spa every day while the poor toil isn’t accurate," Moore and Griffith explain. "It's because they work so hard they're able to enjoy the comforts of life."

"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"

Meanwhile, Americans are concerned about the growing inequality of income, but they don't see the government as a solution for the most part, according to a new study by four esteemed professors for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
SPECIAL: CELEBRITY VIAGRA SECRET REVEALED
Learn More

"The survey shows that while respondents who view information about inequality are more likely to believe that inequality is a serious problem, they show no more appetite for many government interventions to reduce inequality — with the notable exceptions of increasing the estate tax and the minimum wage," the professors write.


They are Ilyana Kuziemko of Princeton University, Michael Norton of Harvard, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley and Stefanie Stantcheva of Harvard.

"Our working hypothesis is that those surveyed alighted on the estate tax because it applies to many fewer Americans than respondents had assumed," the authors say.

"And respondents favored increasing the minimum wage because doing so does not necessitate heavy government involvement"

Bottom line: "The survey reveals a deep mistrust of the federal government’s ability to administer programs effectively and efficiently even after confronted with the importance of these programs in alleviating poverty among those Americans at the bottom of the ladder," the professors concluded.

Author:  SteveSarley [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

I just bought a 60" 4K Ultra HD Vizio, new in the box, with a 2-year warranty at Costco yesterday for $450.
It was the last one left. I couldn't believe it.

Author:  pittmike [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

SteveSarley wrote:
I just bought a 60" 4K Ultra HD Vizio, new in the box, with a 2-year warranty at Costco yesterday for $450.
It was the last one left. I couldn't believe it.


Wow

Author:  Brick [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Douchebag wrote:
Drunk Squirrel wrote:
My plasma crapped out a few weeks ago and I updated to a 4K Samsung. I think it's the 8000 series. My main complaint is that it is unnaturally bright and it was almost blinding first time I watched hockey in it. Also not as smooth as the plasma was. I loved the oled but I just couldnt justify the cost.

I bought a 4k Samsung last year and I would agree on the brightness. The whites really pop out at you. That would be an issue with hockey ice.

...and all the fans.

Author:  Chris_in_joliet [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Try and hold off until Memorial day weekend if you can. You can find the best deals on Superbowl week along with March Madness and the 4 holidays (Chrismas,Memorial,Labor, 4th of July). Read the reviews of the tvs that are on sale. The guy at Best Buy tried to point me in the direction of one 4K TV that was the exact same size as the one I wound up buying but it was $200 more and had almost the exact same specs. He thought it was better reviewed but the one I picked had about 2k more reviews. Also 4k isnt for everyone. First time I looked at a 4k I didnt care for it...but I went to the store enough and saw how great the picture was I knew I had to have one.

Good luck.

Author:  Chris_in_joliet [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Also Comcast at this time doesnt support 4k support but you can still tell the difference in the picture with out it.

Author:  Brick [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Amazon also normally has some pretty great deals with no real predictability. Pick a tv you like and wait it out.

I've had great results from every Samsung tv I've ever purchased.

Author:  reents [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Chris_in_joliet wrote:
Also Comcast at this time doesnt support 4k support but you can still tell the difference in the picture with out it.


Is it Directv or Dish you have to go with to see the 4k, because I also have Comcast.

Someone put this around Christmas seeing Las Vegas on youtube, you can get that in 4k

Author:  Curious Hair [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Drunk Squirrel wrote:
My plasma crapped out a few weeks ago and I updated to a 4K Samsung. I think it's the 8000 series. My main complaint is that it is unnaturally bright and it was almost blinding first time I watched hockey in it. Also not as smooth as the plasma was. I loved the oled but I just couldnt justify the cost.

That's why hockey ice should be a pale blue and not bright white.

Author:  Drunk Squirrel [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

A subtle blue hue would probably help. I wonder if it would be as visually appealing in person. Might be just a situation that you'd have to get used to it not being white. I've tinkered around with it and can deal with it. Had noticed in the 46 inch screen that it was a bit bright but it was overwhelming on 65 in a dark room. So, either the tinkering helped or I got used to it.

Author:  badrogue17 [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Thanks for the input everyone . Good stuff .

Author:  leashyourkids [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Move.

Author:  Telegram Sam [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

Curious Hair wrote:
Drunk Squirrel wrote:
My plasma crapped out a few weeks ago and I updated to a 4K Samsung. I think it's the 8000 series. My main complaint is that it is unnaturally bright and it was almost blinding first time I watched hockey in it. Also not as smooth as the plasma was. I loved the oled but I just couldnt justify the cost.

That's why hockey ice should be a pale blue and not bright white.


I fear the shifts might linger on it.

Author:  badrogue17 [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

leashyourkids wrote:
Move.

You do realize you live close enough to DiCaro that I can piss on her lawn and still have enough left to make it over to yours too?

Author:  Chris_in_joliet [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

reents wrote:
Chris_in_joliet wrote:
Also Comcast at this time doesnt support 4k support but you can still tell the difference in the picture with out it.


Is it Directv or Dish you have to go with to see the 4k, because I also have Comcast.

Someone put this around Christmas seeing Las Vegas on youtube, you can get that in 4k



I dont know about Direct TV or Dish. Ive been there and done that and Im not foolish enough to ever go back to satellite so I couldn't tell you. I do know that Comcast has fooled around with the idea of running 4k including some of their Olympic coverage.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 1080p vs 4K TVs

I think DirecTV is the one piping in 4k for certain events. I believe the Masters (the whole tournament or just the final rounds I'm not sure) is in 4K if you have their service and a capable device.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/