Is there one UHD TV under $3,000 worth buying

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Is there one UHD TV under $3,000 worth buying

alisam

689 posts

Ultimate Geek

#150758 2-Aug-2014 08:32

The subject says it all.
I tend to get despondent trying to read all the spec. and trying to understand them.

All I know is, I want:
Good picture
Smart TV (definitely not sluggish)
Can get Netflix
4 x HDMI
I will keep the TV for several years at least.

My reasoning for an UHD TV now is that the content will come?
Will upscaling give me a better picture than otherwise?

PC: HP ProBook 470G1 (Windows 10 Pro), Intel NUC7I5BNH (Windows 10 Pro), Dell Inspiron 7591 2n1 (Windows 11 Pro)
Net: Grandstream GWN7062, 3 x Grandstream GWN7610
Storage: Synology DS216play NAS, 2 x 6TB
Media: HDHomeRun Connect, 5 x Amazon FireTV. Echo, Dot, Spot
TV: 2 x Samsung H6400 55" LED TV, Panasonic TH-P50G10Z 50" Plasma TV
Mobile: Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Wearable: Gear S3 Frontier

1 | 2

1961 posts

Uber Geek

#1100468 2-Aug-2014 08:53

IMO there isn't any UHD TV worth buying. It's just a passing fad. Never likely to be any broadcast UHD due to bandwidth required and I suspect unlikely to be any other content available except via Internet which means you also need speed and bandwidth.

MyHeritage

Shop MyHeritage and uncover your origins and find new relatives with a simple DNA test. (affiliate link).

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1100482 2-Aug-2014 09:33

Don't buy 1st generation of any tech (IMHO). I have seen several 50-ish" UHD sets that have been discounted to below $3K of recent, but haven't been impressed by the motion artefacts on them. Whether that was due to what was being fed to them or the TV itself, who knows. JBHIFI in Albany even has some of their UHD sets connected to a 720p component feed, go figure. The way ahead for 4K is probably via the 'net.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

JimmyH

2820 posts

Uber Geek

#1100559 2-Aug-2014 11:44

Plus, as the first generation HDTV adopters discovered, there is always a risk that they will change the specs and/or technology and leave you with a very expensive boat anchor.

First generation HDTVs cost a fortune, could only do HD over component inputs, and were rendered essentially useless when the manufacturers the mandated HDMI and HDCP for HD playback devices. IMO, it's worth wait until the technology is entrenched enough, and the install base big enough, that they can't pull a stunt like that.

bfginger

1237 posts

Uber Geek

#1100795 2-Aug-2014 18:53

I don't think 4k is a passing fad but like HD it's going to take time.

If Samsung's top curved 4k television had image quality I found disappointing and probably inferior to your old plasma I doubt their cheaper models are much better.

To get a 4k television with a good picture you'd have to spend more than $3000.

People who bought first generation 4k televisions without HDMI 2 are the ones who'll be burned.

I don't think we'll see Netflix NZ supported by new TVs until 2016. Did you mean you use Netflix USA?

JBHIFI in Albany even has some of their UHD sets connected to a 720p component feed, go figure.

I've seen one shop showing 4:3 standard definition on a huge Sony 4k.

mailmarshall

293 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1100862 2-Aug-2014 20:40

I got the 55" Samsung UHD F9000 at Easter time at JB Hifi. Was down from $6500 to $3800 just for that day. Really happy with it so far (apart from lack of content) - we went from a generation 2 Bravia to this tv.

The tv has the Samsung SMART box which "theoretically" can be upgraded in the future.

Recently was in JB again and saw that Samsung have come out the curved UHD and a cheaper flat UHD (sub $3K). Talked to the rep for some time and he outlined all the things Samsung did to get this cheap set out there and he said my model (which was late 2013) is the better tv and to stay away from the cheap stuff.

richms

26417 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1100900 2-Aug-2014 21:48

Seems the motionplus processing isnt happening when its getting 4k contnet on a friends one. That is from a PC but dropping it back to 1080 and playing the same stuff gives much nicer motion than it does with the desktop res at 4k. Thats both with the PC outputting 24Hz and 60Hz when doing the 1080 - just so much more watchable. Dont think the PC was dropping frames or anything when doing the 4k 24Hz output but really we were just messing around with it. What I saw was enough for me not to bother for entertainment purposes.

I will be getting a 4k screen for the computer sometime soon, the 28" looks to be a sweetspot and should be nicer than a 27" QHD where all the pixels are quite visible.

Richard rich.ms

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1100941 3-Aug-2014 08:10

B1GGLZ: IMO there isn't any UHD TV worth buying. It's just a passing fad. Never likely to be any broadcast UHD due to bandwidth required and I suspect unlikely to be any other content available except via Internet which means you also need speed and bandwidth.

UHD is not a passing fad it is however in its infancy. UHD will never be broadcast from satellite or terrestrial towers but it will be delivered via UFB.

Services/products have already been created for service providers to enable this.

NzBeagle

948 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1100952 3-Aug-2014 08:54

If buying a UHD TV then Netflix is your best option at this time. The native app needs to be available for your model for it to work correctly. Something the Panasonic doesn't yet do unfortunately. But Samsung works great with 4k Netflix content. Netflix has a list detailing compatible models.

Dunnersfella

4064 posts

Uber Geek

#1101250 3-Aug-2014 19:25

Under 3k?
Avoid UHD TV's.
The top of the line, flat panel sets are quite nice - resolution aside, they seem to do good work with what they're being fed.
However, if you walk into a retailer sending them a picture via component, or 4:3 content... leave.
I'd wait until a physical media standard is established, personally.

bfginger

1237 posts

Uber Geek

#1101970 4-Aug-2014 18:44

If buying a UHD TV then Netflix is your best option at this time.

Netflix doesn't have official support for New Zealand and won't for another year or longer. To use Netflix USA people are relying on proxies like Orcon's global mode and the grey workability of the Netflix app on some NZ TV models. When Netflix does launch in NZ they may not want to continue to turn a blind eye to people being able to access Netflix USA which will probably be cheaper than Netflix NZ.

Netflix 4k requires a fast internet connection and many won't be fast enough. There is little content when it does work.

NzBeagle

948 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1102000 4-Aug-2014 19:32

bfginger: Netflix doesn't have official support for New Zealand and won't for another year or longer. To use Netflix USA people are relying on proxies like Orcon's global mode and the grey workability of the Netflix app on some NZ TV models. When Netflix does launch in NZ they may not want to continue to turn a blind eye to people being able to access Netflix USA which will probably be cheaper than Netflix NZ.

Netflix 4k requires a fast internet connection and many won't be fast enough. There is little content when it does work.

For many it's still a viable option. Even if Netflix does launch in NZ, it wouldn't hold anywhere near the content of the USA library. As for the connection, ADSL can still pull down Super HD which is good for most, and beats standard 720p broadcast available here in NZ. 3D is more VDSL territory. Either way, there's only really Netflix or YouTube to enjoy 4k content legally, which if you're buying a 4k TV is important to note.

Kopkiwi

2617 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1102407 5-Aug-2014 10:16

There isn't even one OVER $3k worth buying.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1102414 5-Aug-2014 10:33

The key component in a UHD TV due to the lack of native content is the scaler which up scales your content to fill the 4K pixels. Usually the more expensive sets will have better scalers so I would expect that any cheap TV will have a cheap scaler and therefore may in fact look worse then a good 1080p TV.

Also IMO unless you are sitting a couple of feet away or can afford a 80" plus set, I doubt you will really notice the difference.

$3000 will buy you a very nice 1080p TV which IMO will give you much better bang for buck. I also don't expect that 4K will see full mainstream deployment, i.e. standards and plenty of content, for a few years yet so a decent 1080p screen will do you nicely until that timer arrives and 4k TVs are similar price to current 1080p TVs.

alisam

689 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1102519 5-Aug-2014 12:03

geekiegeek: The key component in a UHD TV due to the lack of native content is the scaler which up scales your content to fill the 4K pixels. Usually the more expensive sets will have better scalers so I would expect that any cheap TV will have a cheap scaler and therefore may in fact look worse then a good 1080p TV.

Also IMO unless you are sitting a couple of feet away or can afford a 80" plus set, I doubt you will really notice the difference.

$3000 will buy you a very nice 1080p TV which IMO will give you much better bang for buck. I also don't expect that 4K will see full mainstream deployment, i.e. standards and plenty of content, for a few years yet so a decent 1080p screen will do you nicely until that timer arrives and 4k TVs are similar price to current 1080p TVs.

FYI
In my other Topic (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=34&topicid=150715&page_no=2) I posted:

"Just to let you know, I bought a Samsung UA55H6400 on the weekend."

reven

3647 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1102522 5-Aug-2014 12:09

personally i would want a UHD tv for gaming. hook up a computer with great a great gfx card (or two or more) to it and be stunned.

1 | 2