Should I wait for 4k

[shep1968]

Hi all. I am thinking of updating my TV and would probably plump for a 40" absolute maximum 42". The Sony recommended by what Hifi would seem a good bet. However 4k is on the horizon. Will it be worth waiting a year or two for the new TV or is the size of TV I want too small to make any material difference to the picture quality.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Hi all. I am thinking of updating my TV and would probably plump for a 40" absolute maximum 42". The Sony recommended by what Hifi would seem a good bet.

Which Sony was that?

However 4k is on the horizon. Will it be worth waiting a year or two for the new TV or is the size of TV I want too small to make any material difference to the picture quality.

I suspect that 40-42" is too small to properly display 4K, but I'm happy to be overruled by someone more knowledgeable.

 

[Native_bon]

I have got a 60 inch 1080p & I dnt see the need for 4k. 4K only makes sense from 65inch & above. Also for those who want to game in a higher resolution for more detail.

 

[john1000000boy]

Personally I won't be getting onto 4k unless I went for a pj. They will need to get cheaper and I may need a bigger room... I do have a 65" full hd tv though...

john

 

[Deleted member 2457]

I won't be getting 4K, I don't see the point.

 

[The_Lhc]

I won't be getting 4K, I don't see the point.

I give you 18 months, tops.

 

[Deleted member 2457]

I won't be getting 4K, I don't see the point.

I give you 18 months, tops.

*biggrin*

 

[shep1968]

Hi all. I am thinking of updating my TV and would probably plump for a 40" absolute maximum 42". The Sony recommended by what Hifi would seem a good bet.

Which Sony was that?

However 4k is on the horizon. Will it be worth waiting a year or two for the new TV or is the size of TV I want too small to make any material difference to the picture quality.

I suspect that 40-42" is too small to properly display 4K, but I'm happy to be overruled by someone more knowledgeable.

Cant remember the actual model, got an award this year. Was using it as an example though. If i wait a couple of years for sky to presumably start using 4k do you think that there will be no discernable difference on a 40" TV between full HD and 4k?

 

[abacus]

If you wait you will never upgrade as there is always something new round the corner.

Basically if you find something that is better than what you have, (After viewing and listening to it) and you can afford it, go for it, and forget what's round the corner.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[bigboss]

On a 40-inch TV, you'll struggle to notice any difference. 4K for such a small size will make sense only if the content is 4K and not compatible with 1080p TVs, if at all that will ever happen (probably 10-15 years from now).

 

[bigboss]

If you wait you will never upgrade as there is always something new round the corner.

Basically if you find something that is better than what you have, (After viewing and listening to it) and you can afford it, go for it, and forget what's round the corner.

Hope this helps

Bill

The problem is; 4K standards weren't properly defined earlier, resulting in 1st generation and some of 2nd generation "4K" TVs becoming obsolete and not being able to play 4K. Models from 2015 onwards should hopefully be fine.

 

[Native_bon]

If you wait you will never upgrade as there is always something new round the corner.

Basically if you find something that is better than what you have, (After viewing and listening to it) and you can afford it, go for it, and forget what's round the corner.

Hope this helps

Bill

The problem is; 4K standards weren't properly defined earlier, resulting in 1st generation and some of 2nd generation "4K" TVs becoming obsolete and not being able to play 4K. Models from 2015 onwards should hopefully be fine.

Very much agree

 

[shep1968]

If you wait you will never upgrade as there is always something new round the corner.

Basically if you find something that is better than what you have, (After viewing and listening to it) and you can afford it, go for it, and forget what's round the corner.

Hope this helps

Bill

Not greatly I'm afraid Bill. My current TV is perfectly adequate but i am getting the bug to spend some money. If a 4k TV would be available and a step up from my current morre than adequate one then i would be quite prepared to wait a couple of years. I've been an early adopter previously and regretted it.

 

[simonlewis]

My advice would be see what models come out in 2015 and not go for an end of line 2014 model.

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Even wait for 2016.

 

[Series1boy]

I wouldn't upgrade if your existing Tv is good enough. 4k is still in its infancy with very little content, if any in its native form.. and unless you are going for a 65inch tv, then its a waste of time as per previous points from others in this thread you won't see the benefit.

 

[shep1968]

I wouldn't upgrade if your existing Tv is good enough. 4k is still in its infancy with very little content, if any in its native form.. and unless you are going for a 65inch tv, then its a waste of time as per previous points from others in this thread you won't see the benefit.

My current TV is 3-4 years old, a Sony 37 inch that cost over £1k. The equivalent 40" in total size is not much bigger due to the small bezel and costs £400. Watching golf sometimes is an issue on mine as the ball in flight can be jerky. I could replace it now, i could wait a couple of years, it is perfectly ok to watch. By the time it really needs replacing 4k should be up and running. As you all say, a 4k tv at 40" screen size even with a 4k feed isnt going to make that much difference so i wont plan a change around it.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

I am concerned that you intend replacing a 37-inch television with one of only 42 inches at most. You certainly will NOT notice that small increase in size. Of course, if other things like motion handling also improve, that might be worthwhile I guess ..... Out of curiousity, why do you have a 42" limit?

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100000090351445]

In test, with two TVs side by side one at 4k and 1080p and at an appropriate viewing distance, and taking into account the retinal theory concept that the eye cannot percieve a sharper image at a set distance, the results show that for some source materials you can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p.Now a screen size less than 48 inch is pointless for 4k in that respect. But it is also about your visual acuity.Some people are better at picking out details than others.
If you can afford a 4k oled then yes you have the best TV money can buy.
I personally feel that with 4k our viewing habit changes so we will be sitting closer and will enjoy the details 4k will bring.
I recently brought a 4k 60hz on a displayport 1.3 connection, a Samsung 28inch TN monitor with 1 msec refresh rate and with my Benq 1080p monitor on the same desk I could tell the difference with the same working distance and prefer the Samsung in one sense;sharpness was astounding at that proximity.
As it is a TN panel but tweaked to deliver 1 billion colours it does lose the contrast of the Benq VA 1080p panel.
But a true 10 bit Ips grade 4k 60hz monitor will cost £800.That is too much.
It is a 'trial' way into 4k.But I am glued to my desk and not my couch.

 

[shep1968]

I am concerned that you intend replacing a 37-inch television with one of only 42 inches at most. You certainly will NOT notice that small increase in size. Of course, if other things like motion handling also improve, that might be worthwhile I guess ..... Out of curiousity, why do you have a 42" limit?

Its due the the space that the TV has got to fit into. There simply isnt room for a larger TV in there unless i move the fireplace and the window!!

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Move the fireplace and the window! I do realise that that may cause all sorts of domestic repercussions .......! *smile*