# Go 4K or not?



## fusseli

I have decided to upgrade to a new display since my old 47" is much too small for my new room. I've decided to go with a 60 to 65" panel. Probably a 65.

The question is, should I get 4K or not and is it worth it, even if future proof? My viewing distance was very far at 12', but I moved my couch up to about 10' after quickly realizing how tiny my 47" looks. I could probably squeeze it to about 9' but can't go any closer. For a 65" at 9', the recommendations I see are about 8.5' to 13' as optimal for 1080p, and 8.5' being the cutoff into 4K territory. I'm using the RTINGS guide and not THX. For whatever it's worth, I also have a 4K up-converting receiver.

I'm considering the Samsung 65H7150 ($1800) or 65UH8550 ($2500) since they are reviewed as the best performing and highest value of the high end. I didn't really want to go over the $2k mark if possible, but there is some leeway.

Is 4K worth 140% the cost of 1080p?
Is 4K really even "future proof" since it pushes the boundary of the human visual system and requires unfeasibly short viewing distances?

Another option would be to go for a 70" 4K, but I would be limited to something affordable like the Vizio P-Series that doesn't have 3D and doesn't have as good of color. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about the Vizio skimping on other key features like HEVC, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort.


----------



## Tom Riddle

fusseli said:


> I have decided to upgrade to a new display since my old 47" is much too small for my new room. I've decided to go with a 60 to 65" panel. Probably a 65.
> 
> The question is, should I get 4K or not and is it worth it, even if future proof? My viewing distance was very far at 12', but I moved my couch up to about 10' after quickly realizing how tiny my 47" looks. I could probably squeeze it to about 9' but can't go any closer. For a 65" at 9', the recommendations I see are about 8.5' to 13' as optimal for 1080p, and 8.5' being the cutoff into 4K territory. I'm using the RTINGS guide and not THX. For whatever it's worth, I also have a 4K up-converting receiver.
> 
> I'm considering the Samsung 65H7150 ($1800) or 65UH8550 ($2500) since they are reviewed as the best performing and highest value of the high end. I didn't really want to go over the $2k mark if possible, but there is some leeway.
> 
> Is 4K worth 140% the cost of 1080p?
> Is 4K really even "future proof" since it pushes the boundary of the human visual system and requires unfeasibly short viewing distances?


I voted "Other 1080P" only because I believe the best TV still "barely" on the market is the Samsung PN64F8500 plasma. I don't believe the current benefits of 4k are there yet. However, if you're buying an LED set, it really only makes since to go 4k. Almost all manufacturers are abandoning making 1080P sets and are focused on 4k solely.


----------



## madmachinest

I was going thru the same thing for several months . Yesterday I decided to pick up the Samsung UN65HU8550F. Picture quality out of the box was disapointing but using the THX optimiser made a huge difference.

Picture quality is the best I have ever seen, 3d is amazing and I could not be happier. Remotes are good but missing backlighting, 3d glasses are a huge dissapointment. Do not get me wrong they work fine but feel like they came out of a kracker jack box. 

My 6 year old 55 inch Viseo had a great picture but was beginning to give me some issues. I debated the 1080 or 4k question for months but in the end I am very happy with my decision.


----------



## fusseli

Tom Riddle said:


> I voted "Other 1080P" only because I believe the best TV still "barely" on the market is the Samsung PN64F8500 plasma. I don't believe the current benefits of 4k are there yet. However, if you're buying an LED set, it really only makes since to go 4k. Almost all manufacturers are abandoning making 1080P sets and are focused on 4k solely.


I don't want to go plasma and all I have read recently is that plasma is dead, despite the benefits.



madmachinest said:


> I was going thru the same thing for several months . Yesterday I decided to pick up the Samsung UN65HU8550F. Picture quality out of the box was disapointing but using the THX optimiser made a huge difference.
> 
> Picture quality is the best I have ever seen, 3d is amazing and I could not be happier. Remotes are good but missing backlighting, 3d glasses are a huge dissapointment. Do not get me wrong they work fine but feel like they came out of a kracker jack box.
> 
> My 6 year old 55 inch Viseo had a great picture but was beginning to give me some issues. I debated the 1080 or 4k question for months but in the end I am very happy with my decision.


Thanks for the input! I am still torn. I see more people are voting 1080, but I am still feeling swayed to 4K. It seems like the most likely path of least regret :dontknow:


----------



## Tom Riddle

^True, plasma is not being manufactured any longer - the PNxxF8500 is the last and they are almost sold out. Plasma offers better contrast, black levels and off angle viewing than LED. Also, the PNxxF8500 won the Value Electronics HDTV Shootout two years in a row. With all that said, if you want to go LED, it only makes sense to go with a 4k set. Just as Plasma sets are no longer being manufactured, LED will likely not make 1080 sets past 2015, except for low-end models.


----------



## tonyvdb

the thing is that there is little content available for 4K TVs. sitting 10-12ft away from a 4K 60" display would yield no difference in quality over a good Plasma in my opinion. you have to sak yourself if the extra $$ for a 4K is worth it at this time.


----------



## fusseli

I agree with you. The thing is, I don't want to get stuck wishing I had it a couple years down the road. It's too much hassle and too costly to upgrade TVs every few years. I want something that will last, my present tv is awesome it's just too small.

If I go 4K I am considering the Vizio 70" or Samsung 65", and would squeeze to 9' couch distance.


----------



## JBrax

I think I'd go with the 4K display. It's obvious that you would regret any other decision. I'm not so sure I agree with the statement "you'll see no difference". I've seen the 4K demo at my local Best Buy and the difference was definitely apparent with the naked eye. As for the content…it's coming.


----------



## Tom Riddle

I don't believe the increase in resolution would be super apparent at your seating distance, but artifacts and other anomalies would be less visible because of the resolution. Again, I don't see much reason to purchase a 1080P set unless it's plasma, otherwise 4k should really be the only option. The Vizio sets have gotten pretty good reviews this year, and I believe they all are direct LED sets with true local dimming. I wouldn't buy anything edge lit.


----------



## fusseli

I got my couch moved up so the distance is about the 9' range which will help either way. The only downer I am seeing to 4K is the price premium since in a couple years it will mature like 1080P did... So really, it might make more sense to compare a cheaper 65" (non 3D) 1080 set in the $1300 to $1600 range. $1800 of potential buyers remorse with the H7150 is a little scary. Compared to $2500 for the 4K Samsung UH8550.

Has anyone watched prices enough to know, will there be any price breaks in a couple months when the 2015 model hit the shelf or will the 2014 prices hold steady?


----------



## Tom Riddle

fusseli said:


> I got my couch moved up so the distance is about the 9' range which will help either way. The only downer I am seeing to 4K is the price premium since in a couple years it will mature like 1080P did... So really, it might make more sense to compare a cheaper 65" (non 3D) 1080 set in the $1300 to $1600 range. $1800 of potential buyers remorse with the H7150 is a little scary. Compared to $2500 for the 4K Samsung UH8550.
> 
> Has anyone watched prices enough to know, will there be any price breaks in a couple months when the 2015 model hit the shelf or will the 2014 prices hold steady?


I think it's already starting to mature - $2,500 is pretty cheap for a 4k set. I'm not sure where the HU8550 falls in Samsungs lineup, but since the 8's are typically their high-end model, I would assume it is. If so, $2,500 for a high end set is good.


----------



## fschris

something about a 4K led / lcd seems to be really shady in my opinion.... i think the manufacturers are really getting the marketing dept into hyper drive snd they dont even have great PQ. I mean its "good" but no where near the PQ of a plasma which they killing off...

wait for OLED or something. i think LG is pushing the envelope here with OLED pricing and I hope they are rewarded. i say wait it out.... keep your powder dry....


----------



## Tom Riddle

^I'm concerned about the state of OLED; LG is the only company that seems to be trying to procuce, and they are doing so sparingly. I had planned to get their 65" OLED 4k set this year, but it was delayed and then the price went up significantly. Instead I moved my 65VT30 to my Master Bedroom and bought a PN64F8500 for the Living Room. I'm very happy with my purchase.


----------



## fusseli

After another day of reading around I'm swaying back to 1080. 4K is a tough sell, other than it being the obvious "next-gen." Many tests out there people claim you can't tell 4K over 1080 unless you are within 6' on a 65" or bigger screen. That seems like a trivial benefit at best, then consider the limited content and absence of 4K blurays for another few years. A benefit besides 4K on the UH8550 I can see is if a future firmware update allows it to use free-sync on its Displayport input. Here's an interesting calculator that shows how 9' with 65" is just on the edge of being able to see 4K, with an "11%" improvement over 1080 (and 20/20 vision!). This statement resonates with me, especially since I have to squeeze to get to 9':



RTINGS UN65UH8550 Review said:


> Unless you are siting closer than 9 feet from your TV, buy instead our #1 TV in this list (the H7150). The picture quality is exactly the same, minus the lower resolution that doesn't matter at a distance.


Has anyone seen 4K enough to know any difference? If someone could assure that with 65" it's worth it at 9' that would be a be help. Otherwise the $700 premium for 4K isn't worth it since years down the road eyes don't get any better and my viewing distance won't be any closer than 8-9'.

I have a line on a 60" Samsung plasma for <$1000 (PN60F5500) at a local shop but I'm hesitant since it wasn't reviewed that well. Doesn't seem like a good option. The only other place to get local is Costco, so I will probably be ordering one online.

I also read on the Sharp Aquos Q+ (imitated 4K) and the Toshiba 4K options, but both fail on general picture quality to even the Vizio P-Series. Not to mention they seem to be lacking in various minor features.


----------



## JBrax

Are you not able to physically see one for yourself? If you have a Best Buy nearby they should have 4K's on display.


----------



## fschris

i really do believe 4k will be awesome, DTSX will be awesome, ATMOS will be awesome... but like in 5 years. its way to ealry to buy into this hyper marketing gimmick. like i said in other threads. these LED LCD dont have have the black levels of the original kuros's from like 8 years ago..... yet they want us to buy '4K' .... and I am someone who love to upgrade stuff myself....saying this...


----------



## tripplej

I am holding off on 4K. CES 2015 will showcase 8K. see link here from cnet. 

Will wait and see what the new format is that the industry settles in on. But beyond that, I will wait for OTA reception to catch up first.


----------



## fusseli

I don't see 8K being reality anytime soon, or to be of any concern. HDMI 1.4 can only do 30fps 4k, HDMI 2.0 can do 60fps. For streaming you need 20Mbps or faster, and movie sizes are on the 50-100GB range. 8k wouldn't be very feasible for the data requirements and 4k already challenges the limits of human vision even for >65" screens


----------



## tonyvdb

I've seen 4K TVs on display and of course they look better standing 2ft away from them. Even the one they had in their media room was only about 7 ft away from the seating position and they did not have a good 1080p display beside it to compare. At a normal viewing distance the benafits of the higher resolution fade. I'm waiting for a 4K affordable projector. That will be a much better investment in my opinion. In the mean time I'm enjoying my Panasonic 50" ST60 plasma in my livingroom and my projector in the theater. I just don't see the need to spend the money on 4K with little to no content still available. It's turning into another 3D scenario where almost no one cares.


----------



## tripplej

Manufacturers are trying their best to generate revenue in a sluggish economy. 3d, curve, 4k, 8k, OLED, quantum dot, or whatever else they can come up with is just a means to an end (revenue). 

Till OTA reception is improved, I will stay with 1080p.


----------



## fusseli

I went to Best Buy and another local place yesterday. The 65" UH8550 in person with the 4K demo is really impressive. I also looked at the 65" Vizio P-Series and wasn't sold, in the center of the screen it looks great but along the edges and corners it's as if the full array LEDs aren't close enough to the edge and corners so the last few inches of the screen have a halo of cloud. No thanks. The Aquos Q+ also looked nice and detailed in person but it seems too gimmicky since it's fake 4K.

Both shops were out of the 65" UH8550 otherwise I would have gotten it. The local shop offered me a Sony 65" X850B for the same price, $2500, when the going price is $2800 online. I'm tempted by this. The Sony has an IPS panel so it has typical LCD contrast of the 1000:1 range whereas the UH8550/H7150 excel with the 4000:1 range. The Sony has lower input lag and better viewing angle from the IPS, as well as the Sony "Triluminous" (formerly quantum dot) back light instead of usual the white LEDs. The reviews say the Sony has stunning PQ in lit rooms but obviously can't touch the blacks of the Samsungs so maybe isn't the best for dark rooms. The X850B also doesn't have local dimming, only frame-based.

I'm definitely going 4K after seeing it in person and seeing the amount of content available. Samsung offers a free UHD pack and the Sony has a $100 Amazon Instant Video credit. Amazon is streaming in 4K already, all they require is 15 Mbps internet or better and they will detect a 4K tv. Netflix is also doing 4K for a couple extra bucks a month.

I was sold on the Samsung due to the acclaim online but I might have to give the Sony 4K a shot for the same price. My room has floor to ceiling windows with curtains and isn't a dedicated home theater, so the black levels don't worry me as much. In person the Sony looked amazing, the blacks and contrast are definitely better than my 2011 LG Infinia's 9 zones of dimming flashlights, so it may not have the blacks of the Samsung but it's easily a league above the older LED tvs. The viewing angle is also a plus since I have side seats that are occasionally populated by guests.


----------



## fusseli

I decided to get the Sony XBR 65X850B over the 65UH8550. The Sony is just stunning on 4K demos and colorful content. It may have "worse black levels" compared to others, but it's the best IPS I've seen. It blows my old LG Infinia out of the water.


----------



## fusseli

I ended up returning the X850B because I ended up with a bad back light and a huge cloud in one corner (undoubtedly a defect or it was roughed up in handling). The Sony XBR was a great tv and I liked it a lot, but when I took it back to exchange I traded to the Samsung HU8550. Some notes on either, the Sony seemed to have better build quality and I liked the smart tv interface a little more, and it had a few different processing options than the Samsung. It also came with a $100 Amazon Video credit that I used to try Elysium on 4K streaming. The Samsung weighs probably 30-40 lbs less than the Sony, and the blacks are superior. In a dark room with the Sony/IPS black is limited to a dark grey and that's as good as it gets without good local dimming. However with the Samsung's VA panel and local dimming, black is always black. Also, I think the 3D is better on the Samsung, watching Avatar 3D in full 1080 is like looking through a window. It's great. In 3D the Sony had some ghosting on foreground objects. During the day time both look superb and will make you drool with 4K content. I'm really looking forward to 4K blurays, 1080 blurays are just outstanding on these mid-high end 4K LED sets.


----------



## fschris

that is some great feedback for anyone looking to upgrade right now. are you using the Samsung now? how many hours do you have on it? do you primarily watch movies or do you watch any sports? it looks like you could just not live with those black levels!


----------



## fusseli

Yeah, the Samsung has been great so far. I've been glued to it since I got it setup yesterday so there's probably less than twelve hours on it. I can't say much for comparing the panel types other than the Samsung helps the blacks, that goes hand in hand with the local edge dimming on the Samsung that the Sony X850B lacks. That Sony only whole-frame dims. I watch about 40% movies, 50% tv/streaming, and maybe 10% gaming.

Here's a apples-to-oranges comparison of the bad X850B I returned and the Samsung 8550 I just got. Pictures speak for themselves! I'm not trying to dog on the X850B, it was drool worthy in the daytime, I just had a set with the bad corner that was driving me nuts within a week of ownership since I watch most movies (letterbox) at night.


----------



## Oleson M.D.

Forget the 4K issue, go with the Samsung 8550 as it is the best picture available. I have one and LOVE it!!! BTW, it replaced my plasma.


----------



## fusseli

Yeah I am really enjoying the 8550. The Sony has its strengths but the better backlight and panel technology on the Samsung win it mor me on better basic picture quality with the superior blacks.


----------



## mark_anderson_us

fusseli said:


> Yeah I am really enjoying the 8550. The Sony has its strengths but the better backlight and panel technology on the Samsung win it mor me on better basic picture quality with the superior blacks.


I went with Sony 65x950B. really wanted FALD and I think Sony's upscaling and color is much better than Samsung. Only thing I like about Samsung was potential upgradeability, but I'd never take that over PQ


----------



## Blacklightning

JBrax said:


> I think I'd go with the 4K display. It's obvious that you would regret any other decision. I'm not so sure I agree with the statement "you'll see no difference". I've seen the 4K demo at my local Best Buy and the difference was definitely apparent with the naked eye. As for the content…it's coming.


I'm not sure how that best buy setup was but if it's the split sceen UHD (4K) on one side and 1080p HD on the other you can forget it.

I remember when they did DVD vs blyray, the DVD looked really bad. My DVD's looked a lot better.


----------



## mark_anderson_us

Blacklightning said:


> I'm not sure how that best buy setup was but if it's the split sceen UHD (4K) on one side and 1080p HD on the other you can forget it.
> 
> I remember when they did DVD vs blyray, the DVD looked really bad. My DVD's looked a lot better.


Yeah, I'm not remotely interested in the demo material: what manufacturer is gonna produce demos that shows flaws or doesn't look good in brightly lit showroom. Best buy is still a joke. I was in my local store. They're showing $3k+ UHD on a cable signal split 12 ways. Looked worse than 1080P. Naturally, all the $5K+ sets have a dedicated player/feed and too many people think it's the display that's giving the good picture


----------



## fusseli

mark_anderson_us said:


> I went with Sony 65x950B. really wanted FALD and I think Sony's upscaling and color is much better than Samsung. Only thing I like about Samsung was potential upgradeability, but I'd never take that over PQ


Nice! That set is in a league of it's own and is in-arguably a tier above the HU8550. I can't imagine how good it must look. How much was it and where did you get it from?

For me, the basic PQ from the better blacks and contrast was a clear winner over the X850B I tried. That Sony had better build quality and other minor perks over the HU8550, including a nice clarity to the image that was hard to describe, but the panel and back light technology were embarrassingly inferior. I'm very satisfied with the Samsung.

Have you tried any 4K content yet? It really is impressive. The 4K streaming stuff is okay and at best a marginal improvement to a 1080P bluray to me. You should try some 4K videos off of a hard drive if you haven't already. I have downloaded a few from here onto a USB 3.0 external hard drive and I have to say they are pretty mind blowing. I can't wait for 4K bluray. Speaking of which, I think I read it is supposed to be 4:4:4 30/24 Hz for anyone wondering. There is a lot of hype out there about 4K 4:4:4 60Hz support that is really only relevant for using the TV for a computer display.


----------



## mark_anderson_us

fusseli said:


> Nice! That set is in a league of it's own and is in-arguably a tier above the HU8550. I can't imagine how good it must look. How much was it and where did you get it from?
> 
> For me, the basic PQ from the better blacks and contrast was a clear winner over the X850B I tried. That Sony had better build quality and other minor perks over the HU8550, including a nice clarity to the image that was hard to describe, but the panel and back light technology were embarrassingly inferior. I'm very satisfied with the Samsung.
> 
> Have you tried any 4K content yet? It really is impressive. The 4K streaming stuff is okay and at best a marginal improvement to a 1080P bluray to me. You should try some 4K videos off of a hard drive if you haven't already. I have downloaded a few from here onto a USB 3.0 external hard drive and I have to say they are pretty mind blowing. I can't wait for 4K bluray. Speaking of which, I think I read it is supposed to be 4:4:4 30/24 Hz for anyone wondering. There is a lot of hype out there about 4K 4:4:4 60Hz support that is really only relevant for using the TV for a computer display.


I'm a Sony dealer and there was a huge discount up until Jan 31st, so I ordered it. Arrives next wekk. Spent a lot of time looking at it in store. Didn't buy the FMPX10 4K player as reviews say there is virtually no content. Once I get it set up, I'll investigate more. I bought it more for the color gamut than res, but dying to try some native 4k content. Will checkout the link you sent.


----------



## fusseli

mark_anderson_us said:


> I'm a Sony dealer and there was a huge discount up until Jan 31st, so I ordered it. Arrives next wekk. Spent a lot of time looking at it in store. Didn't buy the FMPX10 4K player as reviews say there is virtually no content. Once I get it set up, I'll investigate more. I bought it more for the color gamut than res, but dying to try some native 4k content. Will checkout the link you sent.


Yeah Samsung has something similar, it's really just an HDD with some 4K movies and tv on it. That doesn't seem worth it to me for several hundred bucks.

The link is in French but if you right click the blue "Telecharger" button on each video page, you can right-click and do save link as to download it. Then load it onto a USB3 drive and try it on the tv! My Samsung has played 4K .mp4, .ts, and .mkv files no problem.


----------



## mark_anderson_us

fusseli said:


> Yeah Samsung has something similar, it's really just an HDD with some 4K movies and tv on it. That doesn't seem worth it to me for several hundred bucks.
> 
> The link is in French but if you right click the blue "Telecharger" button on each video page, you can right-click and do save link as to download it. Then load it onto a USB3 drive and try it on the tv! My Samsung has played 4K .mp4, .ts, and .mkv files no problem.


Already started!


----------



## LoveHT

I chose other 4K. I'm anticipating more 4K material by the end of next year. I put away some money toward new equipment. I just purchased a Sony 4k TV and so far I love it. (Sony-XBR65X850B) Only time will tell if it is a good choice. 

Regards,
Rocco


----------



## BoomerangJ

The 850B is what I have. Background: Last year was extremely busy for us. Ie; not time to do the normal research that I do. I can't stand shopping at the Best Buys and other stores-so for 20 years we have bought from a locally owned TV Store that match prices with the discount stores. The sales guys are knowledgeable and I trust them. 

Over the Holidays we decided to treat ourselves to a new living room TV. I walked into this store with the intent of buying another 1080p set, but in the 60-65" range-maximum space we have available. I'll be honest and say I had never even heard of 4k. This store carries Samsung, Sony, LG, Panasonic, Sharp, and Toshiba. The Sony blew me away. When I walked in the door with maybe 50 TV's to look at my eye went immediately to the Sony's. The 950 was incrementally better-but out of my snack bracket. The 850 was great (still way more then I had intended to spend as I knew 1080's had dropped in price). I did let the salesman talk to me about the other brands, 4k, etc. I specifically dwelled on the curve sets. This salesman did not like them and showed me some of the viewing issues and strongly recommended against them. Long story short-I did buy the Sony. It looks way better then my 1080p did with the same sources. Even our guests over the holidays were pretty blown away with it. One fancies himself as a closet A/V guy and he does have a nice set up-loved it. 

I still haven't researched the best way to feed this TV to get great video. I noticed in previous posts to this thread that people are stating 9' viewing distance? Not for us. Seating area is 14' feet away. 9' the set looks fine and much closer then that it has a wierd look to it. I BELIEVE that watching Netflix through the internet connection to the TV's receiver is the best resolution-maybe even a 4k feed?-that channel looks the best at all viewing distances. The upconverted stuff is what I believe looks like it's been painted by an impressionist artist up close. Looks better then 1080p beyond 8'.

We are due for a DirecTV upgrade and before we do that I'm going to research and see what the best way to feed this TV will be. Question posted at: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...sources-you-using-your-4k-tv.html#post1144882

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## jb5200

I voted Samsung 4K b/c I currently own two Samsung 1080 tv's (55 & 65) and prior have tried just about every other brand. The only reason I chose the Samsung is b/c I have had super good luck with these tv's vs. other brands and if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I have seen the Sony and as others have stated it is extremely stunning but I can't seem to get myself to drop that kinda cash for it.


----------



## mark_anderson_us

fusseli said:


> Nice! That set is in a league of it's own and is in-arguably a tier above the HU8550. I can't imagine how good it must look. How much was it and where did you get it from?
> 
> For me, the basic PQ from the better blacks and contrast was a clear winner over the X850B I tried. That Sony had better build quality and other minor perks over the HU8550, including a nice clarity to the image that was hard to describe, but the panel and back light technology were embarrassingly inferior. I'm very satisfied with the Samsung.
> 
> Have you tried any 4K content yet? It really is impressive. The 4K streaming stuff is okay and at best a marginal improvement to a 1080P bluray to me. You should try some 4K videos off of a hard drive if you haven't already. I have downloaded a few from here onto a USB 3.0 external hard drive and I have to say they are pretty mind blowing. I can't wait for 4K bluray. Speaking of which, I think I read it is supposed to be 4:4:4 30/24 Hz for anyone wondering. There is a lot of hype out there about 4K 4:4:4 60Hz support that is really only relevant for using the TV for a computer display.


Not sure why you're comparing the Sammy to the 850B when I said I bought the 950B. tried lots of 4K content and it's great, as is upscaled BD and OTA. From my research the 950B was way better than the Samsungs.


----------



## TomFord

fusseli said:


> I have decided to upgrade to a new display since my old 47" is much too small for my new room. I've decided to go with a 60 to 65" panel. Probably a 65.
> 
> The question is, should I get 4K or not and is it worth it, even if future proof? My viewing distance was very far at 12', but I moved my couch up to about 10' after quickly realizing how tiny my 47" looks. I could probably squeeze it to about 9' but can't go any closer. For a 65" at 9', the recommendations I see are about 8.5' to 13' as optimal for 1080p, and 8.5' being the cutoff into 4K territory. I'm using the RTINGS guide and not THX. For whatever it's worth, I also have a 4K up-converting receiver.
> 
> I'm considering the Samsung 65H7150 ($1800) or 65UH8550 ($2500) since they are reviewed as the best performing and highest value of the high end. I didn't really want to go over the $2k mark if possible, but there is some leeway.
> 
> Is 4K worth 140% the cost of 1080p?
> Is 4K really even "future proof" since it pushes the boundary of the human visual system and requires unfeasibly short viewing distances?
> 
> Another option would be to go for a 70" 4K, but I would be limited to something affordable like the Vizio P-Series that doesn't have 3D and doesn't have as good of color. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about the Vizio skimping on other key features like HEVC, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort.



No 4K. 

Before purchasing the Samsung 7150 I researched 4k immensely. I premised it around 4K being available through DVR by Cable/Satellite. Japan, who develops the majority of technology that will be used to implement/distribute it in the U.S.promised 4k would be ready in their bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic games if they were to win. Which they lost and shortly after admitted 2016 wasn't a realistic time line they believed could be reached. They won the following summer Olympics in 2020 now saying 8K (film every event in 8K) will be ready 

Biggest problem is they have to entirely get rid of the SD standard definition boxes. SD service cannot be offered which will tick off Gma even though I purchased an HD for her on xmas. Seniors and many others don't care. 
Next is the amount of storage needed. A new DVR from Comcast holds 100 GB. The standard HD provided (1920 x 1080) roughly 1.5 GB for 2 hr movie. Whereas 2 hr movie in 4K (3840 x 2160) is 40 GB. So the cable/sat providers have to revamp connection to your house and components inside it.

Based on this info and a bit more I determined it was best to wait for 8k. Forecasted it being shortly behind if not already with 4K content provided by cable/Satellite. You will see s large drop in price like you have in the 4K's from superior technology (Moore's Law) with a display in 8K (7680 x 4320) that's on an completely different level of detail, clarity, etc

A major Japanese corporation came to the same conclusion as I did. NHK, Nippon Hoso Kyokai (Japan Broadcasting Corporation), is Japan's only public broadcaster

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/news/article/forget-ultra-hd-8k-is-closer-than-you-think/14385. 

They've developed the world's first 8K camera which is wanted by every studio.


----------



## BoomerangJ

But then about the time 8k becomes available, 16k will be in development and talked about, then what? (Also Moore's law).


----------



## TomFord

BoomerangJ said:


> But then about the time 8k becomes available, 16k will be in development and talked about, then what? (Also Moore's law).



Touche. Yet no. Moore's law is not going to last much longer. The law created in 1965 is expected to last is 2025. For those unfamiliar, Moore's law states "Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years." In 1975 the time was adjusted to every 18 months I believe. 
Here's a quote from Wikipedia - For example, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors predicted that growth would slow around 2013,[16] and Gordon Moore in 2015 foresaw that the rate of progress would reach saturation: "I see Moore’s law dying here in the next decade or so."[17]"

Many believe it will end sooner in the area of 2022, 2023. The transistors/semiconductors 
and other components are simply becoming too small is the reason if I recall correctly, yet I'm convinced it will end in the next decade based on what I've read.
It's been amazing living through this golden age of technological advances, being able to double the power of a computer while reducing the size by 100% every 18 months. The aspect of it that's been frustrating that we all have encountered is the majority of the electronics we'very purchased being essentially obsolete in 1.5-2 years. 

I spoke with a few people who've seen the rare 8k displays. In one occasion they had the display showing a strawberry. Next to it was a painting of strawberry and a real strawberry They all said that until you were within a few inches (under 6) is the only distance they could determine the real strawberry over the display of the 8k. 

You may of said that sarcastically or in jest. Yet for what the human eyes are able to perceive, the amount of quality and detail displayed in a 8k picture the need or want to go beyond it will not be a practical application in the home or any other venue (possibly excluding very rare medical, and scientific research areas) for at least 2 decades in my opinion


----------



## fusseli

4K is here to stay. IMO it will become the defacto streaming format within another year or two, the sad reality is that 1080P blurays still can offer better PQ than the best streaming. Finalized UHD bluray specs are also right around the corner, which is highly likely to be 10bit color in 4:2:0 chroma at 24fps and will have HDR and other features for better PQ than anything to date. This is already maxing out the bandwidth of HDMI 2.0 so I think the format will be around for a while. There's also a lot more to it than pixels. The hardware can't barely handle 4K right now, meaning it won't be mainstream for another few years to come.

8K is a big fat don't care / ain't gonna happen within 10 years.


----------



## TomFord

fusseli said:


> 4K is here to stay. IMO it will become the defacto streaming format within another year or two, the sad reality is that 1080P blurays still can offer better PQ than the best streaming. Finalized UHD bluray specs are also right around the corner, which is highly likely to be 10bit color in 4:2:0 chroma at 24fps and will have HDR and other features for better PQ than anything to date. This is already maxing out the bandwidth of HDMI 2.0 so I think the format will be around for a while. There's also a lot more to it than pixels. The hardware can't barely handle 4K right now, meaning it won't be mainstream for another few years to come.
> 
> 8K is a big fat don't care / ain't gonna happen within 10 years.


Don't care? 

Agree, 4K will be around a while. Disagree on the 10 years for 8K, believe it will be 5 years. Once it's available the content unlike 4K, will be readily available on a wide range of platforms


----------



## fusseli

Disagree. The bandwidth requirements are beyond immense for true 4K. The demand for actual image quality above streaming is not likely to drive the market to an even higher level. If "8K" hits the shelves it will be marketing gimmick to sell electronics.


----------



## willis7469

fusseli said:


> Disagree. The bandwidth requirements are beyond immense for true 4K. The demand for actual image quality above streaming is not likely to drive the market to an even higher level. If "8K" hits the shelves it will be marketing gimmick to sell electronics.


 Agreed. Plus, I can't afford the 1 quadrillion inch screen it will take to see any difference. Maybe a VR helmet with 2 separate displays (1 for each eye) one inch away. I think 8k will get pushed aside by HDR.


----------



## willis7469

TomFord said:


> . Once it's available the content unlike 4K, will be readily available on a wide range of platforms


 why will 8k be so much more available, faster than 4k, when 4k is having traction issues of its own? I just don't see it.


----------



## rab-byte

willis7469 said:


> Agreed. Plus, I can't afford the 1 quadrillion inch screen it will take to see any difference. Maybe a VR helmet with 2 separate displays (1 for each eye) one inch away. I think 8k will get pushed aside by HDR.


HDR and 10-12bit color at 60frames will create a major hurdle for HDMI to overcome. I'd expect yet another revision to the HDMI spec in the next year. 2.0a won't be enough to handle this type of bandwidth. I'd would be great if display port were to be universally adopted but I don't expect that to happen.


----------



## willis7469

rab-byte said:


> HDR and 10-12bit color at 60frames will create a major hurdle for HDMI to overcome. I'd expect yet another revision to the HDMI spec in the next year. 2.0a won't be enough to handle this type of bandwidth. I'd would be great if display port were to be universally adopted but I don't expect that to happen.


 I didn't mean to say HDR won't have obstacles, but it seems like going beyond 4k in resolution doesn't hold much benefit. (My crystal ball is foggy lol). I agree with fusselli saying it would be a sales aid. And why IS it so hard to get universal anything?


----------



## tonyvdb

This whol 4k8k thing has me annoyed. There is still hardly any content for it and any that is available on line is compressed so much that your really not getting any better than BluRay quality in the end.


----------



## BoomerangJ

When I bought my Sony 4k it was an impulse buy. Rare for me. I usually study up on things but as I reported in another thread-I walked into our local A&B TV-Austin and saw the 4k and to me it was stunning. Had no idea.

After I bought it and realized that there were only a few 4k sources I still felt good about it as the up conversion easily looks better then my 1080p TV. (4k is 65" and 1080p is 50").

But I did start researching timeframes on real 4k sources. As luck would have it a long time friend of mine is an executive at a video analytics company. We had a nice long personal chit chat and then I asked him when he thought 4k would come to satellite. He said that the providers have there analytics equipment and are analyzing now with the intent of coming to market later this year. Like 6 months from now.

Once that happens along with 4k sets being sold cheaper and cheaper I bet 4k will become mainstream pretty quick. It's definitely a data issue that the providers are wrestling with. The pipes are only so big and they need to pump multiple revenue streams through the pipe. With a 4k movie requiring more then 15mps download speeds (http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/01/4k-streaming-bandwidth-problem.html) The pipes have to be big and fast flowing. 

It's going to be an interesting next couple of years!


----------



## fusseli

I can't wait for UHD bluray to come out, personally. 1080P BDs look amazing on my 4K set, add in 4k resolution, 10bit color, and some form of HDR processing and it will be a new world of PQ.


----------



## TomFord

willis7469 said:


> why will 8k be so much more available, faster than 4k, when 4k is having traction issues of its own? I just don't see it.


Not saying there won't be issues, just not near the amount of problems to overcome to get 4K to the house via cable or satellite. Not even close. The reason I say this is because the providers have to almost completely redesign the components in your house, and the bandwidth that delivers the content to it. First step, getting rid of all SD boxes, next increasing the bandwidth for it to be delivered. They're not going to reconstruct the way data is sent to your home without adding additional measures for upcoming technology like 8K and others. Regardless how bad the service of the provider, this is not something they would/could overlook. For one they're are not near the # of consumers with 4K displays for the companies to be strongly investing there R&D into it. For the board to approve such an expensive project, future proofing with ability to handle 8K, as well as other new technology will have to be included in the proposal for the board to sign off on it.

We will have 8K content by 2020 for the Olympic games in Japan. They're not backing off of their promise to deliver all events in the resolution. And as you've seen with the significant price drops in 4K displays over the last year, the same will occur for 8K. 

One element I had forgotten about that looked very promising and impressive was the Dolby Vision that was to be introduced in displays later this year. Any of you heard anything recently on it? Or have the time to Google it? The brightness by a more powerful/efficient back light made the displays with Dolby Vision appear very impressive, yet I've only seen an onine comparison. Any of you seen one in person?


----------



## Blacklightning

fusseli said:


> I can't wait for UHD bluray to come out, personally. 1080P BDs look amazing on my 4K set, add in 4k resolution, 10bit color, and some form of HDR processing and it will be a new world of PQ.


I know this is an old trend.

The problem with your statement is that right now UHD Bluray standards are not set and no 4K sets can 100% do the standard. So I'm afraid most people that have a 4K set will need to buy another one in a couple years to take advantage of all the benefits of UHD.


----------

