4k UHD TVs worth it?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Angelus359
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Angelus359 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:43 pm

I have a 4k 65 inch TV.

Cost me 1200 at Costco.

You generally can't find high quality 65 inch TVs that aren't 4k anymore, so...
IT-DevOps System Administrator

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13059
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Toons » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:57 pm

I spend most of my viewing time streaming Netflix or Youtube to a
Samusng 27" Curved Monitor.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by jhfenton » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:51 pm

madbrain wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:34 pm
jhfenton wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:15 pm
Most of the available 4K content at this point is streaming, and 4K streaming is not really much better (if at all) from blu-ray 1080p. But 4K streaming looks better than 1080 streaming, so we feel like it's valuable.
Agree 100% with the above.
I hope they'll eventually start encoding alternate 4K streams at higher bandwidths than the 15-25Mbps they currently use. We have gigabit fiber, so there's a lot of wasted bandwidth.
Doubt they will unless the average broadband speed in the US goes way up, and the ridiculous data caps that cable companies have implemented go away. A 1TB data cap is equivalent to about 20 dual-layer blu-ray discs at 50GB each - and we are talking HD discs. The UHD 4K Blu-ray discs can go to triple-layer and be 100GB each, and top at 128 Mbps bit rate. With a 1TB data cap you could stream a whole 10 discs a month before hitting the cable company's typical data cap.

It's great that you can get fiber - I can't. Actually Comcast sells me 250 Mbps with data cap, and is only able to deliver about 98% uptime, which is horrible. Speed is irrelevant when everything goes down all the time. We can forget ever streaming anything at any bit rate ! I guess Comcast techs will keep coming to our house and giving us credit for non-working service until they upgrade about 2 miles worth of their cable network - we are all the way at the end. Can't wait for fiber to arrive ! How much are you paying for it ?

I'm afraid the whole backbone would have to be significantly upgraded to support more than 1 UHD 4K stream at >100 Mbps continuous. And even 1 stream is probably pushing it. I monitor my download speed every hour with automated speedtest on an Odroid XU4. It varies between 30 and 300 Mbps, but typically about 200, still short of the 250 promised. Smokeping also monitors my connection to a few internet sites, and all my LAN/WLAN devices so I know when anything goes down...

Anyway, to get back to movies, I think nothing beats the UHD blu-rays right now. You can get some relatively inexpensively if you watch for promotions - between $10 and $20 per disc. They are not more expensive than HD blu-ray discs when they first came out. The catalog is still limited. But I already have about 50 of those discs. Obviously much more expensive than streaming, but many are not available on streaming, or not in any comparable video and audio quality.
I agree that higher streaming rates will not happen soon, but I can dream. :beer We're fortunate enough in Cincinnati to now have the densest urban fiber network in the country, with availability to more than 70% of addresses offered by the local phone company. And they're still building it out, with a stated target of hitting 80-85%. And because we've always been a competitive internet market (Cincinnati Bell v Time Warner/Spectrum), we've never had data caps in Cincinnati. I can't imagine dealing with data caps. I personally uploaded 9 TB to a new cloud backup provider last week. And we don't have cable, so we're all constantly streaming video.

madbrain
Posts: 5157
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by madbrain » Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:37 am

jhfenton wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:51 pm
I personally uploaded 9 TB to a new cloud backup provider last week. And we don't have cable, so we're all constantly streaming video.
Yeah, I don't use cloud backup partly because of the data cap, and partly because the 30 Mbps upload speed makes it pointless anyway, even without a data cap - it would take a whole month non-stop to upload 9TB to the cloud.

ncbill
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:03 pm

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by ncbill » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:39 pm

So, I know DolbyVision & HDR10 are the HDR formats any new HDTV I buy should support, but is there a standard for "wide color gamut?"

Or are we waiting for the latter to be sorted out as well?

KNMLHD
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:57 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by KNMLHD » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:34 am

Dottie57 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:08 am
I will be of no help.

I am debating about switching from 720p to 1080p. Behind the curve here.
Ditto... my 720p Samsung projector still throws a nice picture. I'm thinking one more lightbulb change (getting close - current one has lasted incredibly long). Another bulb should give me another 3 years, and will put it at 15 years old.... just in time for 4K projectors to come down & content to become available, or possibly really big oled screens become "reasonable".

iamlucky13
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by iamlucky13 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:00 pm

jhfenton wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:15 pm
iamlucky13 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:27 am
Meh.

One of the movies in my collection came with a DVD in addition to the Bluray when I bought it. That made it easy to compare, and we're not even talking about the difference between HD 1080 lines) and UHD 4K (2160 lines). We're talking SD (480 lines) vs HD (1080 lines).

On my 50" plasma, I can make out some differences in things like the texture of clothing or hair if I pay attention, and the colors due to the improved color space of Bluray. I think there's differences in the soundtracks, too, but I didn't pay as close of attention to that.
Wow. I'm far from a video/audio snob, but I the difference between DVDs at 480 and blu-rays at 1080 is striking. It is actually quite remarkable how bad some of the old DVDs look at this point in comparison.

At this point, I wouldn't recommend buying a main set (>50") in anything but 4K. There's just not enough price difference (if you can find a large 1080p set at all). We love ours, and it was a cheap 55" model.

Most of the available 4K content at this point is streaming, and 4K streaming is not really much better (if at all) from blu-ray 1080p. But 4K streaming looks better than 1080 streaming, so we feel like it's valuable. I hope they'll eventually start encoding alternate 4K streams at higher bandwidths than the 15-25Mbps they currently use. We have gigabit fiber, so there's a lot of wasted bandwidth.

It's possible your comparison's are different releases. Often films are re-edited when released for Bluray.

Angelus359
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Angelus359 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:03 pm

jhfenton wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:15 pm
iamlucky13 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:27 am
Meh.

One of the movies in my collection came with a DVD in addition to the Bluray when I bought it. That made it easy to compare, and we're not even talking about the difference between HD 1080 lines) and UHD 4K (2160 lines). We're talking SD (480 lines) vs HD (1080 lines).

On my 50" plasma, I can make out some differences in things like the texture of clothing or hair if I pay attention, and the colors due to the improved color space of Bluray. I think there's differences in the soundtracks, too, but I didn't pay as close of attention to that.
Wow. I'm far from a video/audio snob, but I the difference between DVDs at 480 and blu-rays at 1080 is striking. It is actually quite remarkable how bad some of the old DVDs look at this point in comparison.

At this point, I wouldn't recommend buying a main set (>50") in anything but 4K. There's just not enough price difference (if you can find a large 1080p set at all). We love ours, and it was a cheap 55" model.

Most of the available 4K content at this point is streaming, and 4K streaming is not really much better (if at all) from blu-ray 1080p. But 4K streaming looks better than 1080 streaming, so we feel like it's valuable. I hope they'll eventually start encoding alternate 4K streams at higher bandwidths than the 15-25Mbps they currently use. We have gigabit fiber, so there's a lot of wasted bandwidth.
When the av1 codec is finalized, you'll be wasting even more bandwidth since 4k will be smaller.
IT-DevOps System Administrator

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by jhfenton » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:13 pm

Angelus359 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:03 pm
When the av1 codec is finalized, you'll be wasting even more bandwidth since 4k will be smaller.
That depends on whether a video streamer decreases the bandwidth requirements or increases the quality of the video.

Besides, the main advantage of av1 over HEVC will be that it is royalty-free. It remains to be seen how large the performance advantage is once both codecs mature.

Angelus359
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Angelus359 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:05 am

jhfenton wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:13 pm
Angelus359 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:03 pm
When the av1 codec is finalized, you'll be wasting even more bandwidth since 4k will be smaller.
That depends on whether a video streamer decreases the bandwidth requirements or increases the quality of the video.

Besides, the main advantage of av1 over HEVC will be that it is royalty-free. It remains to be seen how large the performance advantage is once both codecs mature.
Hevc has already matured, so we can see where it is now.

Av1 just hit Firefox nightly, so it is testable, but the encoder needs a lot of work because it's super slow right now.
IT-DevOps System Administrator

HoosierJim
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:11 pm

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by HoosierJim » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:46 am

I bought a 50" 4K TV as a computer monitor and it's wonderful. It's like looking at a sheet of plywood no borders or bezels. Really it's like looking at four old monitors

engineer1969
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:56 pm

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by engineer1969 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:51 am

We have a 4K and there is a noticeable difference on a larger screen. I'm sure the cost will come down enough eventually for everyone to make the jump.

Something happened in Costco last week which hasn't happened to me in a long time -- I was amazed by a new screen they had on display (QLD). I needed to stop and watch for a bit then moved on...

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by jhfenton » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:55 am

Angelus359 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:05 am
jhfenton wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:13 pm
Angelus359 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:03 pm
When the av1 codec is finalized, you'll be wasting even more bandwidth since 4k will be smaller.
That depends on whether a video streamer decreases the bandwidth requirements or increases the quality of the video.

Besides, the main advantage of av1 over HEVC will be that it is royalty-free. It remains to be seen how large the performance advantage is once both codecs mature.
Hevc has already matured, so we can see where it is now.

Av1 just hit Firefox nightly, so it is testable, but the encoder needs a lot of work because it's super slow right now.
I agree that HEVC has matured. I've used it for my own videos for a couple of years.

The last I read the av1 bitstream format was supposed to be finalized this month. I look forward to seeing what it can do.

Angelus359
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Angelus359 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:23 pm

jhfenton wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:55 am
Angelus359 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:05 am
jhfenton wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:13 pm
Angelus359 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:03 pm
When the av1 codec is finalized, you'll be wasting even more bandwidth since 4k will be smaller.
That depends on whether a video streamer decreases the bandwidth requirements or increases the quality of the video.

Besides, the main advantage of av1 over HEVC will be that it is royalty-free. It remains to be seen how large the performance advantage is once both codecs mature.
Hevc has already matured, so we can see where it is now.

Av1 just hit Firefox nightly, so it is testable, but the encoder needs a lot of work because it's super slow right now.
I agree that HEVC has matured. I've used it for my own videos for a couple of years.

The last I read the av1 bitstream format was supposed to be finalized this month. I look forward to seeing what it can do.
I predict the improvements in size will be used 20% for quality and 80% for size
IT-DevOps System Administrator

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by jhfenton » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:41 pm

Angelus359 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:23 pm
I predict the improvements in size will be used 20% for quality and 80% for size
I'm not sure what that means. You don't usually quote "and" improvements with modern codecs, you quote one given the other held constant. Quality and bitrate (and computational complexity) are unavoidable tradeoffs with every codec.

I expect a 20-30% bitrate improvement for a given quality (objective or subjective) or a comparable improvement in quality for a given bit rate. I expect the lower end starting out and the higher end in 3-5 years.

User avatar
Smorgasbord
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:12 pm

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Smorgasbord » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:00 pm

Back when HD TVs where new, I spend several thousand on a 57" big screen. Of course, that meant I had to host a Super Bowl party, and when people came over they remarked at how much clearer the high definition picture looked compared to regular TV. Unfortunately, my local TV station wasn't broadcasting in HD yet, and they were looking at an SD signal. :oops: Needless to say, this time around I won't be dropping several thousand on the latest iteration of TV.

Angelus359
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: 4k UHD TVs worth it?

Post by Angelus359 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:01 am

jhfenton wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:41 pm
Angelus359 wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:23 pm
I predict the improvements in size will be used 20% for quality and 80% for size
I'm not sure what that means. You don't usually quote "and" improvements with modern codecs, you quote one given the other held constant. Quality and bitrate (and computational complexity) are unavoidable tradeoffs with every codec.

I expect a 20-30% bitrate improvement for a given quality (objective or subjective) or a comparable improvement in quality for a given bit rate. I expect the lower end starting out and the higher end in 3-5 years.
They have more options than improve quality or reduce size with a higher efficiency codec.

They can do some of both, all of one, or all of the other.

The some of both is what I suspect will happen, and most of it will go towards size, because improving quality once you have a reasonable 1080p stream does not profit more than simply reducing bandwidth used.

I'm referring to not theoreticals but rather what the market will do functionally
IT-DevOps System Administrator

Post Reply