Jump to content

Is it really worth buying a UHD OLED TV?


Recommended Posts

Hey there.

I know we UHD OLED Tv', such as 4K and the resent release of 8K tv are available to purchase.  I understand that we currently don't have any TV programs that is in 4K. I usually watch Netflix and there are some programs in high resolution but most are not.   So what gives, is it really worth buying such TV if you are only watching TV an pay-tv in Australia?    Can any audio guru enlighten us in this topic please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Only said by those who have never lived with one. Those who have don’t make said comments 🤙

4k yes with some caveats....   yes we have the media.... in both disc and streaming. will need a telly large enough to resolve the higher resolution or sit very close.... there will be some

I have evaluated OLED TV's and thats why I DON'T own one and wont until OLED's inherent limitations are addressed. For "quality" viewing, such as Bluray movies, OLED doesn't cut it, nor does ANY

Netflix, amazon prime and stan all have a significant amount of content available in 4k now.  If any of it is of interest to you and you have NBN then it is probably worth purchasing a 4K TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, MrSQ said:

I know we UHD OLED Tv', such as 4K and the resent release of 8K tv are available to purchase.  I understand that we currently don't have any TV programs that is in 4K.

4k yes with some caveats....

 

yes we have the media.... in both disc and streaming. will need a telly large enough to resolve the higher resolution or sit very close.... there will be some benefits regardless in colour volume and dynamics to the picture due to HDR and WCG. 

 

8k ? no... no media and completely non sensical in the home...

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lil Caesar.

I did purchase a 75 incher for my home theater.  I do use it for Netflix and Its probably the only option I currently have that makes it worthwhile to use my TV.  Thanks for the update mate.  Just wondering what our TV channels use, not 4k I guess, would it be 2K?

Link to post
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, betty boop said:

4k yes with some caveats....

 

yes we have the media.... in both disc and streaming. will need a telly large enough to resolve the higher resolution or sit very close.... there will be some benefits regardless in colour volume and dynamics to the picture due to HDR and WCG. 

 

8k ? no... no media and completely non sensical in the home...

Thank you Betty Boop, its reassuring to know that information.  Just out of curiosity, what does our TV channels broadcast on??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, MrSQ said:

Thank you Betty Boop, its reassuring to know that information.  Just out of curiosity, what does our TV channels broadcast on??

your not going to be looking for any benefit with 4k and our TV channels they are barely 1080i at best, many are 720p and really not even that since heavily compressed in both picture and audio....

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to know, I will keep watching Netflix with the 4K rating to get the most out of my HD system.

Thanks again Betty Boop!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2019 at 9:37 AM, Lil Caesar said:

Netflix, amazon prime and stan all have a significant amount of content available in 4k now.  If any of it is of interest to you and you have NBN then it is probably worth purchasing a 4K TV.

4K is just a marketing number, especially with streaming. None of those services can deliver even close to 4K actual resolution and the per pixel "quality" is lower than 1080 Bluray disk because the data rate is now where near high enough.

4K Bluray disks support over 100Mbps for a reason, streaming services offer only  a quarter of that so resolution and picture quality suffers.

 

1080 streaming is crippled by insufficient data rate as well, both resolution and quality are no where near 1080 Bluray disk.

 

So, if you want to take full advantage of any display forget streaming.

 

Free to air TV is also VERY heavily compressed which guarantees resolution and quality are no where near what the pixel format would suggest. High data rate rules.

Edited by Owen
Link to post
Share on other sites


That depends on what you view and where you view it. Unless dark room viewing is of prime importance OLED doesn't make sense IMHO.

 

I see no point in 4K with TV size displays, even with big screen projection systems 4K is of marginal benefit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Owen said:

That depends on what you view and where you view it

Apart from UHD BD & Current/Next Gen Gaming consoles,  does Foxtel’s 4K service justify having a 4K TV?

 

I’ll end up utilising all 3 of the above, hence why I’m aiming to jump on 4K this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ralfi said:

Apart from UHD BD & Current/Next Gen Gaming consoles,  does Foxtel’s 4K service justify having a 4K TV?

 

I’ll end up utilising all 3 of the above, hence why I’m aiming to jump on 4K this year.

I have recently got a 4K tv and have Foxtel, I recorded the F1 on Foxtel in HD and 4K, there is no comparison, chalk and cheese, 4K has much more detail and is clearly better.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Owen said:

OLED doesn't make sense IMHO.

Only said by those who have never lived with one. Those who have don’t make said comments 🤙

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, awayward said:

I have recently got a 4K tv and have Foxtel, I recorded the F1 on Foxtel in HD and 4K, there is no comparison, chalk and cheese, 4K has much more detail and is clearly better.

No doubt it would be better, comparing the HD channel at about 8-9Mbps to the 4K channels 25, isn't really a fair 1080/4K comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SLE355 said:

No doubt it would be better, comparing the HD channel at about 8-9Mbps to the 4K channels 25, isn't really a fair 1080/4K comparison.

That’s a fair point. 

 

Foxtel HD has gone downhill since its inception, so we can’t know for sure what the difference between its HD & 4K channels are, unless they boost the bandwidth for HD.

 

They’re effectively selling 4K behind a smokescreen that masks their own tampering...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SLE355 said:

No doubt it would be better, comparing the HD channel at about 8-9Mbps to the 4K channels 25, isn't really a fair 1080/4K comparison.

Bingo. High data rate rules so 1080 Bluray with up to 40Mbps blows Foxtel and Netflix into the weeds.

I just can't view either on a big projection screen, the video and sound quality is just unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 25/06/2019 at 7:39 PM, awayward said:

I have recently got a 4K tv and have Foxtel, I recorded the F1 on Foxtel in HD and 4K, there is no comparison, chalk and cheese, 4K has much more detail and is clearly better.

Thats because 1080 Foxtel is utter, utter CRAP. Your Comparison is therefor pointless.

 

You don't need a 4K TV to view so called "4K" Foxtel or Netflix. A HD Fury device will allow you to display so called "4K" content on any TV to take advantage of the higher data rate. You sure don't need a 4K TV as the content has at best 2K resolution, and thats being kind.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/06/2019 at 8:04 PM, Sime V2 said:

Only said by those who have never lived with one. Those who have don’t make said comments 🤙

I have evaluated OLED TV's and thats why I DON'T own one and wont until OLED's inherent limitations are addressed.

For "quality" viewing, such as Bluray movies, OLED doesn't cut it, nor does ANY TV, The picture is WAY to small and TV's look too digital for my liking. Its JVC projector or nothing.

For general TV and other low quality source viewing OLED performs poorly, so no go there either.

If you view in a bright room LCD does a better job, and if you view in the dark OLED's poor dark screen uniformity and second rate colour resolution are unacceptable to me. I wouldn't put up with that level of performance 15 years ago so why would I do so now?

 

My toy budget is $30K to $50K per year so purchasing an OLED TV is a non issue, but no way I will buy one until they do what I need better than what I have.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Owen said:

 

My toy budget is $30K to $50K per year so purchasing an OLED TV is a non issue, but no way I will buy one until they do what I need better than what I have.

 

Impressive annual toy budget you have there Owen, Given your expertise with projectors and TV I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be interested to hear what your HT set up is like and what upgrades you have invested in recently.

 

cheers Terry

 

Edited by TerryO
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Owen said:

but no way I will buy one until they do what I need better than what I have.

I have a 58" 1080p Panasonic plasma from about 10 years ago.

 

So I'm expecting that picture to be improved upon with a 2019 65" 4k OLED, for my needs (BD, UHD BD, PS4 gaming).

 

(No SD content since the Foxtel box was swapped for an IQ4).

Edited by Ralfi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

IMHO no.

 

4k content is still limited, although some of what is transmitted via streaming I find nice to watch.

 

But for me the main reason is you will mostly be watching up-sampled material.   The very best up-samplers are not on 4K TV's but the new 8K models.   I have just got one and it blew my 4K TV out of the water - clarity and depth on HD that everyone notices being better than even 4K material.   Why is that?   See the following:

http://www.insightmedia.info/8k-tvs-top-tv-line-ups-for-a-reason/

 

I can confirm from owning one myself it pretty much what I personally notice:

'As a result of the study, 8K displays performance was rated 35% higher—with perceived image quality increasing by 30% and depth perception increasing 60% from 4K to 8K.'

 

They viewed at 9 feet - I view at about 10-12 feet.

 

Its at a good price right now:

https://www.harveynorman.com.au/samsung-65-inch-q900-8k pro-qled-smart-tv.html

 

If its in your price range I would seriously consider it.

 

Be aware however that exactly how 8k will be transmitted or even if it will look any better than 4k up-scaled via the new Artificial Intelligence Algorithms these TV's have is not known at this stage - nor is there any 8k material being transmitted.  But, as I said, to me up-scaled to 8K, HD looks better than 4k did on my old 4k TV.  My guess for what its worth is they will transmit 8K at lower quality level than 4k and rely on various tricks (eg using AI like used in up-scaling) to make the quality better.   Foxtel is already doing it in their 4K - they use an algorithm by a company called Harmonic to transmit parts at lower quality that you will not notice:

https://www.harmonicinc.com/video-appliances-software/technologies/pure-compression-engine/

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bhobba said:

IMHO no.

 

4k content is still limited, although some of what is transmitted via streaming I find nice to watch.

 

But for me the main reason is you will mostly be watching up-sampled material.

I don't find that to seemingly be the case at all. I find that most 4K material is not up-sampled.

Edited by Satanica
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant comment on the high end stuff, but last year I bought a Hisense 50P7 and have been very happy with it considering its price ($795) based limitations. I watched this youtube video last night and was gobsmacked at the picture quality. I didn't realise initially that it was "4K", but I think it shows what can happen with great production and UHD. Would be interested to hear the opinions of the video from OLED users.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Satanica said:

I don't find that to   howeverseemingly be the case at all. I find that most 4K material is not up-sampled.

 

That's not what I meant.   A number of streaming services have genuine 4k material and its increasing.  Some of it I even like eg Warrior.  What I have noticed is on my 8k TV its up-sampling is much more sophisticated than on 4K TV's, being based on AI, so that its more like 8k restoration than up-sampling.  Its so good I prefer it to actual 4k material on my old TV.   I forgot to mention for me the situation is not quite as good with SD material.   Just watching The Good the Bad and the Ugly transmitted in SD and while good I would say its not as good if it was HD ie the up-sampling is not as effective.   But there is still a lot of HD material about to make it worthwhile.

 

The only issue is expense - nearly $6k for a TV is a lot - but like 4k TV's prices will soon drop.  However if you are able to spend that sort of dosh it is worth it.   My Femur broke and it will take about another year to fully recover, although I can get around a bit now and go to lunch each day etc, I had to get a friend to do the following comparison.   It was at Harvey Norman and they got a Sony 4k OLED and the Samsung 8K next to each other for a comparison on 4k material.   Up close you could still see pixels on the Sony - but try as you might there was none on the 8k,   From a normal viewing distance the blacks and etc were clearly better on the Sony due to the OLED - it would be great in a darkened room.   However he preferred the Samsung 8k - the picture, while not as striking as the OLED was more natural, clearer, and with greater depth.  Why that is, is explained in the link I gave before.   At 8 feet picture quality on the 8k was rated as 30% better and depth 60% better.   Combine this with state of the art up-sampling and for me it was the better choice which is why I got it.   Now I have it I just love it - best picture I ever experienced.

 

The caveats are of course expense and no actual 8k material.   They haven't even figured out a standard way to stream 8k or even at normal viewing distances if it will look better than up-scaled 4k.   This is cutting edge stuff with a lot of unknowns.   The only thing I can say for sure is the Samsung 8k sure has a great HD and 4K picture.   The SD picture, while good is not quite in the same class.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 8:44 PM, bhobba said:

 A number of streaming services have genuine 4k material and its increasing.

No streaming service has "genuine" 4K material. Streaming required WAY, WAY too much compression.

4K Bluray disk with a peak data rate exceeding 100Mbps is the only domestic source of "genuine" 4K movies, and all 4K video formats (before compression) are limited to about 3K luma resolution and only 1.5K chroma resolution best case because ALL video is 4:2:0 colour sub sampled and deliberately low pass filtered to avoid aliasing. Most movies are well below that no matter what camera they where shot with or how they where mastered.

 

Don't be sucked in by 8K hype and marketing BS. The reasons why you prefer your new TV have nothing to do with more pixels, you just attribute what you see to that because marketing put the idea into your head.

 

 

On 27/06/2019 at 8:44 PM, bhobba said:

 At 8 feet picture quality on the 8k was rated as 30% better and depth 60% better.

Rubbish, beyond the distance where the indiviual viewer can no longer resolve a particular resolution, say 4K, adding more pixels does nothing useful.

Image depth is dictated by contrast and gamma, neither of which is altered by more pixels than you can see.

 

I've done plenty of testing to investigate this topic over the years using 8K DSLR images so I speak from first hand experience. I don't just rehash what I read on the inter web.

The notion that 8K is 30% "better" and has 60% greater depth on a 65" TV at 8 feet is utter nonsense.

 

As for "upscaling", you do realise it doesn't add any resolution or detail don't you, it just adds pixels. The result is a slightly smoother - softer look IF you are viewing from a distance close enough to see it. If the upscaled image looks sharper or clearer its because its been digitally sharpened, and or image gamma has been tweaked, plain and simple. Up scaling on its own doesn't do that.

Manufacturers have been using digital sharpening to suck consumers into paying for more pixels for years. Its easy to hoodwink people when there is an expectation that more pixels must mean better.

Unfortunately the quality of the pixels cannot be expressed on a spec sheet and that matters more the quantity.

 

Comparing TV's that are not calibrated to exactly the same standard tells you nothing unfortunately.  After calibration almost all of the differences between sets evaporate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 5:51 AM, TerryO said:

Impressive annual toy budget you have there Owen

I don't have a mortgage so its not a big deal. 

I've taken up a collecting hobby that has used my toy budget for the last 3 years. There hasn't been anything in the way of AV gear that has taken my interest in that time and I'm not aware of anything on the horizon.

When my new house finally gets built, its taking for ever to get through planning, I will have to fit out a 7.5x 5.5m dedicated theatre. I'll probably start from scratch, new screen, new audio gear and new projector. I'll have plenty of time to fiddle as I'll be retired.

Until then I will stay with my current 4k JVC projector and 100" screen in a partially dedicated room.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2019 at 3:02 PM, Owen said:

Don't be sucked in by 8K hype and marketing BS.

Did you read the link I gave - here it is again:

http://www.insightmedia.info/8k-tvs-top-tv-line-ups-for-a-reason/

 

At normal distances (9 feet) 8k is judged 30% better with 60% better depth.   Your claim it's not noticeable is based on the Snellen eyechart - but as explained above that is not the whole story.

 

No digital content is transmitted lossless - but hopefully what is missing is not perceptible.   With even more modern codecs than Blue Ray (and even with the same coded HEVC) tricks can be done reduceing it to some very low bit rates:

 

If you think you know more than those doing research in it fine - but I tend to believe them.   That may make me a fool - I will let others judge.

 

The new up-scaling techniques do add resolution using AI to guess it - how effective it is is for you to judge - I find it makes genuine HD look better than 4K did on my old TV.  But that's me - others have posted they do not like it.  SD however is not as good.   Its entirely up to the consumer if it will succeed in the market.

 

Netflix doesn't reduce perceived quality in its main trick - dynamic optimization (a form of adaptive bit-rate using AI) - but is 30% more efficient and much more tolerant to changes in bandwidth of the internet connection

 

I however love my 8K TV.   Just check it out - you may love it to.   If you do not then you can save yourself heaps.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had the room and the coin, I’d buy right now the Samsung that’s at the local good guys, it’s a beauty indeed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sime V2 said:

If I had the room and the coin, I’d buy right now the Samsung that’s at the local good guys, it’s a beauty indeed. 

 

IMHO it is, which is why I got it.

 

But opinions vary.   While I love Foxtel HD up-sampled to 8K others have posted they thought Sony OLED up-sampled to 4k better.   So please, please do not get carried away with the technology - I do that a lot but its not a good idea - go down and check it out for yourself.   My friend that checked it out for me did not compare up-sampled HD or check it - it was simply good luck on my part it turned out so good.

 

Of course its the way of the future and prices will drop fast.   Nowadays you can hardly buy a HD TV they are nearly all 4k.   In a few years it will be the same for 8K.   Will we eventually have 16, 32k etc.   I have my doubts about that - on my 65 inch TV you can put your face right next to the TV and see no pixels.   But then again they say eventually they will have TV's that cover the whole wall - 16k etc may be of some value  then.

 

Thanks

Bill 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2019 at 3:02 PM, Owen said:

Comparing TV's that are not calibrated to exactly the same standard tells you nothing unfortunately.  After calibration almost all of the differences between sets evaporate.

 

BTW that is only too true - and it is maddening because the cost of proper calibration can be a bit pricey.   My installer said something like $1K to have it done properly.  But another person said Todds Hi Fi did it for $135.00 but I am not sure how good they are.  Manufacturers can't do it because the lighting conditions of the room affect the final outcome of what we see. This needs to be taken into consideration when calibrating a TV – so out-of-the-box perfection just isn’t possible.   Besides what's in the showroom is simply to make your eyes pop - it's not even close to correct.   I use the natural setting on my TV but even that would be vastly improved by proper calibration - its just that damn cost thing.   

 

Added Later:

Checked with my installer - $700.00 for calibration.   Not cheap but I have seen reviews where once calibrated some high end TV looked identical to a moderately priced one.  So maybe its really a bargain.   I personally will need to think about it.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bhobba said:

BTW that is only too true - and it is maddening because the cost of proper calibration can be a bit pricey.   My installer said something like $1K to have it done properly.  But another person said Todds Hi Fi did it for $135.00 but I am not sure how good they are.  Manufacturers can't do it because the lighting conditions of the room affect the final outcome of what we see. This needs to be taken into consideration when calibrating a TV – so out-of-the-box perfection just isn’t possible.   Besides what's in the showroom is simply to make your eyes pop - it's not even close to correct.   I use the natural setting on my TV but even that would be vastly improved by proper calibration - its just that damn cost thing. 

You buy a Samsung 8K TV and you're worried about the cost of a calibration?

 

I'd take a 4K OLED + Professional Calibration + Cash Left Over rather than an 8K LCD any day.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Satanica said:

You buy a Samsung 8K TV and you're worried about the cost of a calibration?

 

I'd take a 4K OLED + Professional Calibration + Cash Left Over rather than an 8K LCD any day.

 Could be - I can get carried away with tech.   But I really like the HD up-sampling.

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bhobba said:

 Could be - I can get carried away with tech.   But I really like the HD up-sampling.

 

Thanks

Bill

You should look into a professional calibration. Accredited ones are seemingly in the $400 to $500 range. I'm confident you'll be happy you did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2019 at 3:18 PM, pc9 said:

Good to hear from you again Owen.  Is your 70" LCD still going?

Thanks mate. I have no idea, I sold it years ago.

Edited by Owen
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

Did you read the link I gave - here it is again:

Todays video compression systems are in NO WAY lossless. There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR HIGH BIT RATE and if you had done even basic experiments you would know this.

25Mbps for 4K video, which is all streaming services offer, is nowhere near enough with HVEC compression. Viewed on a 65" TV it may look decent but on a BIG screen the deficiencies are obvious.

1080 Bluray has better video and audio "quality" than 4K streaming. The bit rate per pixel is MUCH higher and it shows.

 

On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

At normal distances (9 feet) 8k is judged 30% better with 60% better depth.   Your claim it's not noticeable is based on the Snellen eyechart - but as explained above that is not the whole story.

I say again, RUBISH. I have evaluated 8K images from my Nikon DSLR camera displayed 1:1 pixel mapped as well as down scaled to 4K and 2K.  Beyond the distance where 4K is resolvable to my eyes 8K provides ZERO benefit, and beyond the distance 2K is resolvable 4K shows no visible benefit as well,.

The web site that claimed the above is a MARKETING COMPANY and will say whatever they are paid to say. I suggest you do your own experiments and do it double blind with an assistant changing the images so you cannot know what you are viewing.

4K isn't 30% better than 2K, its maybe 10% and borderline visible when 2K is processed properly even on a BIG screen. Going from 4K to 8K provided a fraction of that "difference" and thats just not visible in a double bling test.

As for depth, its totally dominated by relative contrast and gamma beyond the distance 2k or 4k is resolvable to the individual. The Darbie video processing system provided FAR more visible difference to image depth than extra pixels ever could because it manipulates relative contrast, and this can be seen from a distance far beyond the resolution limit.

My claims have nothing to do with the "Snellen" eyesight cart, its all from practical hands on experience over many years. I suggest you get some of that under your belt rather than rehash what you read on a web site.

 

On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

No digital content is transmitted lossless - but hopefully what is missing is not perceptible.   With even more modern codecs than Blue Ray (and even with the same coded HEVC) tricks can be done reduceing it to some very low bit rates:

Exactly, and the more compression used to more the losses. What missing may not be perceptible to you viewing on a 65" TV at 10 to 12', which is a LONG way back by the way,  but it sure as hell is to me viewing on a big projection screen at 9'.

 

On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

The new up-scaling techniques do add resolution using AI to guess it - how effective it is is for you to judge -

 

No they do not, to do so would be creating something from nothing. Put a resolution test pattern though upscaling and see how you get on, there is no increase in image resolution WHAT SO EVER.

Video upscaling has been my hobby for the last 15 years, its a topic I am very familiar with. There is no way to add information that never existed in the video, to do so would would be distortion, plain and simple. Its marketing BS, why do you believe that crap?

The world is flat, I read it on the internet. It must be true.

 

On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

Netflix doesn't reduce perceived quality in its main trick

Dude, Netflix is crap on a big screen and I can't stand viewing it. Good old 1080 Bluray blows it into the weeds for video and sound quality. Bitrate RULES.

 

On 30/06/2019 at 11:38 PM, bhobba said:

I however love my 8K TV.   Just check it out - you may love it to.   If you do not then you can save yourself heaps.

Thats fine mate, I'm genuinely glad you are happy with your perchance, however the reasons why you like what you see are not what you think they are. 

A $6K TV is not expensive mate. I remember when a 26" standard definition CRT TV without a remote cost more than that in todays money. It's 2 months toy money to me.

Edited by Owen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2019 at 7:49 PM, bhobba said:

But I really like the HD up-sampling.

You think you do. Problem is what you see is not due to up sampling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats because 1080 Foxtel is utter, utter CRAP. Your Comparison is therefor pointless.
 
You don't need a 4K TV to view so called "4K" Foxtel or Netflix. A HD Fury device will allow you to display so called "4K" content on any TV to take advantage of the higher data rate. You sure don't need a 4K TV as the content has at best 2K resolution, and thats being kind.
 

Fair enough but no ones making 2k resolution tvs anymore so there’s no argument.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the 4K ability of the Panasonic and LG OLEDs I’ve been comparing at home is nice, but hardly essential.

 

Sit more than a couple of metres away and you won’t be able to tell the difference.

 

But that doesn’t matter.

 

OLED blacks do. And they are difference makers on every source. 

 

Unless all all you watch is bright sport, get an OLED.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Owen said:

There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR HIGH BIT RATE and if you had done even basic experiments you would know this.

25Mbps for 4K video, which is all streaming services offer, is nowhere near enough with HVEC compression. Viewed on a 65" TV it may look decent but on a BIG screen the deficiencies are obvious.

Owen, I don't like to express disagreement, as the great bulk of the time I share your views. However I cannot support you in your belittling of 4k streaming.

 

I've found that the HDR material on Netflix can be spectacular, with wonderful dynamic range, and no obvious bitrate starvation.  I suggest if you get the opportunity sometime that you sample any episode of David Attenborough's  2019 series Our Planet,  in 4K with HDR. 

 

                                                                   *            *          *

 

I've recently upgraded from a 2015 Sony 65"  edge-lit LCD set. (I was finding the poor black levels on HDR material too distracting to be able to enjoy the content properly.) 

 

My new set is a 2019 Samsung Q75R 75" full array "QLED". (The US equivalent model is the Q70R.)  At last,  4K titles I have on Blu-ray are displaying with a dynamic range that doesn't look either too dark and murky, or too bright and washed out. Detail in darker scenes is now clearly visible,  e.g. with Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...