Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
MrSQ

Is it really worth buying a UHD OLED TV?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2019 at 9:31 AM, MrSQ said:

I know we UHD OLED Tv', such as 4K and the resent release of 8K tv are available to purchase. 

I think 8k would be very premature, given lack of content. OLED still carries a price premium and unless you are very very concerned about deep blacks, might be overkill.  (I couldn't consider OLED myself  for my own recent purchase because I knew the set I bought would be used a great deal of the time connected to a pc and displaying still images with large expanses of white, and high contrast text, and that would have resulted in a small risk of screen burn-in.)

 

In the world of non-OLED UHD TVs, there is a bewildering range of models to choose from! It sounds to me from your opening post that you may not necessarily be too concerned about getting the very best videophile standard picture quality. Certainly if the predominant viewing would be free to air, it would seem to make sense to aim for the low to mid range sets rather than the mid to high range.   65" is pretty much the de facto standard these days. 50" would be on the small side. The extra size of a 65" set, once you get used to it, is very satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Good to see both Owen & MLXXX still posting. They always provided a wealth of knowledge on  DTVForums. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2019 at 12:35 AM, MLXXX said:

I've found that the HDR material on Netflix can be spectacular

You are cherry picking mate. Don't evaluate using bright content, look at normal movies, in particular dim scenes like ones shot indoors at night, thats where compression throws away a lot of data because its expected that people viewing on TV's likely wont notice, and it seems they typically don't.

Just because people are happy with streaming 4K doesn't make it comparable quality to 4K Bluray with MUCH higher data rate, and even thats never actually 4K resolution it just has 4K pixels which is not the same thing at all, as you well know.

What the 4K streams do reveal  is how poor the bit rate starved 1080 streams are.

 

For image "quality" on a big projection screen I'll take 1080 Bluray over 4K streaming without hesitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/07/2019 at 12:34 AM, Owen said:

and thats just not visible in a double bling test.

Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.............I'm back after ages.................and wonder if my decision to purchase (got it delivered at the weekend) a Sony Master Series A9F is worth the premium I paid over their non-OLED models.

 

In my eyes and mind, I believe there is nothing out there that would return the same bang for buck, but I'm open to discussion/points of view that suggest better could be had for less.

 

I paid $4900 for the 65-inch beast.

 

Next port of call is a professional calibrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cableconnoisseur said:

................and wonder if my decision to purchase.........is worth the premium I paid over their non-OLED models.....

 

If you have already purchased it, why are you looking back? :blink:

 

Just enjoy the new screen! :thumb:

Share this post


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...