@Pauly says: "the only problem with being an early adopter is this, the 4K standards may even change, right now its 2160p, but I was told that there is another 4k resolution coming out, and to complicate things, they are already selling 8k TV's too, so that means u will never have the latest and greatest something new will always come out."
For clarification: You don't need to worry at all about 8k resolution. It won't be relevant for a couple of years.
And it's not the resolution of 4K TV's that is in flux. That resolution is 3840 x 2160. That's standard.
What a TV salesperson would have been talking about regarding changes in TV's at the moment is the introduction of HDR. High Dynamic Range is the ability of your TV to show darker darks and lighter lights - and more clarity in the darks, etc - and more colors.
Many people say that an HDR 1080p TV looks better than a non-HDR 4K screen - but that's not a huge issue because almost all the HDR screens that will be released will be 4K.
But what it boils down to is price. Generally, the more you pay - the better the picture quality. And if you want HDR - you have to buy the top of the line TV's - and pay more.
Yes there's an advantage. I did notice that watching 4k videos on my 1080p TV and desktop monitor did look better than regular 1080p, so I did some research. I think most people replying on here have not probably even googled it before replying to you. The only problem I see with getting a 4k box is the connectivity issue with a HDTV, since 4k uses HDMI 2.0. If your 1080p HDTV can receive the signal from the 4k box and it works, I wouldn't see why not give it a shot. (Of course depending on the cost of the 4k box/plan.
Watch this explanation on Youtube of why video recorded in 4k and watched on 1080p (even though it's down converted) looks better than video recorded in 1080p and watched in 1080p.
I bought a Panasonic Plasma (P65-ZT60) 2 years ago for almost $5000. . CNET said it was the best TV ever (until the new LG OLED 4k tv's came along). The quality I get from this tv is much superior to any LCD based tv's, especially when it comes to sports. Only oled is be able to touch it IMO. But plasmas were much more expensive to manufacture and not as resiliant to things like burn in compared to LCD, so they disappeared (I think you can buy the 60" version on amazon for around $11k if you want). I am not looking to upgrade my plasma any time soon since I spend so much on this tv, so I am in the same boat and want to see 4k content on my Panny. I will eventually upgrade to oled, but I will wait at least 2 more years. I am also going to get 4k bluray (waiting for new playstation, hopefully with 4k bluray player) and see how it looks on my current plasma.
I'm a senior who is not an electronic whiz.
Thinking of upgrading my TV to 4K, which seems to be the up-coming thing.
Wondering if the cost of the set is the only expense or will Rogers charge more to supply 4K signals and would I have to upgrade other equipment such as my PVR?
Is this a wise or foolish move at this time?
-- Fred Cherney, Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Believe it or not, since I work at Best Buy in the Home Solutions department I can tell you most go for the high end models but ask for a deal. There aren't many 50-55inch Samsung, LG, Sony or the other high end models which are less then $1,100. Philips, Vizio and the lower ends are doing. Vizios are doing so well in Canada and might be pulling out from here ( don't say u heard it from me Lmao). Philips isn't there yet and having issues.
Either way the prices will lower for the high ends later on in the years.
This is interesting - now that Foxconn has purchased Sharp, do you foresee Sharp TVs making a comeback?
I reviewed the thread, some comments:
Early days for 4K/UHD in the home. It will be cool to see what's next.
Thought the deal already went through - 6 Billion is a lot of money! It is a matter of time. I hear you re: the TV companies are using the right terms...was talking about Rogers.
Finally, "4K" refers to a resolution of 4096x2160, which is 4 times full HD, hence the name. UHD is approximately 4K, but is NOT the same resolution (it is 3840x2160).
This is annoying because the UltraAVX and digital cinemas we all go to use the former resolution (DCI 4K), which our televisions at home use a slightly lower resolution. Content will have to be cropped, resized or panned/scanned...makes me wonder why they couldn't just pick a resolution and stick with it. Make work project for the industry, maybe?
Hello Meowmix, you posted the above while I was editing my last comment. To answer your question: people who want to watch content (movies) in their native resolution with the best picture quality care. The difference between resolution is an annoyance that the industry try should have ruled out during the planning stages of the standard - why are the movie and TV groups using two close but different resolutions?
This ensures that they will have to continue using widescreen with black bars, even on UHD sets, to show the complete picture. As you know, re-sizing any video introduces picture display issues...does not matter how good the software or hardware is.
So again, 4K and UHD are different, not the same.