New TV Advice

Sporky

ToneControl said:

you seem to know a lot about this

I'm waiting until my current kit  pops its clogs before going 4k, since it will be so long before there is much media for it
Also, when I was buying 2 years ago, there was no way I could afford the better OLED stuff, too early

OLED is still priced for early adopters; IIRC there are still yield issues but they'll be resolved over time. Some early complaints about lifespan too but it feels to me that they're being re-reported and thus exaggerated.

I do know a bit about this; I've been in commercial AV for fifteen years or so; started as an on-site tech, then design engineer, briefly a consultant, back into design and technical sales and now a technical manager for a manufacturer. I've spent a fair bit of time on the boring stuff like screen size and position, relating it all back to visual acuity and ergonomics and such - not an expert on that but I've picked up enough to be dangerous. I've been fortunate in working with a lot of people who either knew far more than me, or asked a lot of awkward questions and then let me have the time to work out the answers.

Chalky said:

See ordinary Sky channels on a big 4k TV and you might seriously wonder whether it's worth buying a new TV.  Are some 4k TVs better at showing lower qualitychannels, non-HD I mean, than others?

Potentially - let's suppose you have two 4K displays using the same panel (which isn't unlikely). The difference in image quality will then be down the backlight and the scaler. The former will affect all signals, the latter may well vary depending on what resolution and format you're putting into it. Assuming the two are in direct competition, one manufacturer might spend more money on HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, whereas the other sticks with HDMI 1.4a and HDCP 1.4 and spends more money on the scaler.

stickyfiddle

We have a 55 HD that feels about the right size but it's in a pretty big room. The floorplan says the room is 4.3m wall-to-wall, so assuming we sit about 3.8 from the TV (screen-to-eyeball), that's 12'6". I can absolutely tell the different between SD and HD content at that difference but would wager 4K would look only fractionally better, if at all. In any case, I wouldn't bother with 4K unless you're already intending to get a big library of 4k content (or some subscription service for it), cos otherwise it's really spending for nothing.

I didn't buy into 3D and I don't see any benefit in curved screens less than about 75". Smart I can see the point of, as iPlayer and Netflix straight through the TV would be neat (in the UK at least!), if not really necessary now you can get amazon fire, apple TV or a PS4/Xbox to give that functionality.

FWIW ours is a non-smart, non-3D Sony Bravia which is 3.5 years old at the moment and never skipped a beat. I chose that it more than anything because it was cheaper than the smart Samsungs/LGs and non-smart Panasonic plasmas. More importantly... I liked the very simple non-flashy bezel, I liked the remote, the menus are all dead simple, and it doesn't make a stupid noise when you turn it on.

Sporky

stickyfiddle said:

We have a 55 HD that feels about the right size but it's in a pretty big room. The floorplan says the room is 4.3m wall-to-wall, so assuming we sit about 3.8 from the TV (screen-to-eyeball), that's 12'6".

My divide-by-75 suggests 50", so I think you've got about the right size, particularly if you mostly watch full HD.

Also I forgot to mention; if you do a lot of gaming then skewing the screen size a little larger can be sensible so that fine text in menus is still readable.

Chalky

Those two calculation methods suggest a typical 2.5m distance means either a 33" TV or a 55" tv. Some difference?!

stickyfiddle

Sporky said:

stickyfiddle said:

We have a 55 HD that feels about the right size but it's in a pretty big room. The floorplan says the room is 4.3m wall-to-wall, so assuming we sit about 3.8 from the TV (screen-to-eyeball), that's 12'6".

My divide-by-75 suggests 50", so I think you've got about the right size, particularly if you mostly watch full HD.

Also I forgot to mention; if you do a lot of gaming then skewing the screen size a little larger can be sensible so that fine text in menus is still readable.

Yep. I use it for gaming and movies more than anything else. Tbh for games I find surround sound a much bigger benefit than a super-amazing screen. But for movies it's the other way around and I'm very meh on surround.

crunchman

stickyfiddle said:

We have a 55 HD that feels about the right size but it's in a pretty big room. The floorplan says the room is 4.3m wall-to-wall, so assuming we sit about 3.8 from the TV (screen-to-eyeball), that's 12'6". I can absolutely tell the different between SD and HD content at that difference but would wager 4K would look only fractionally better, if at all. In any case, I wouldn't bother with 4K unless you're already intending to get a big library of 4k content (or some subscription service for it), cos otherwise it's really spending for nothing.

A lot of TVs have 4k now anyway - including some that can be had for under £400.  If you are like me and buy a TV that you then keep for 8 years or more if it doesn't break then I'd get 4k just to future proof myself.

They are not the latest generation, but we have a Samsung in one room and a Panasonic in another.  For me the Samsung is a better picture.

Sporky

Chalky said:

Those two calculation methods suggest a typical 2.5m distance means either a 33" TV or a 55" tv. Some difference?!

They're based on different assumptions.

The one in the link assumes you have 6/6 (or 20-20) vision, and want to be able to resolve every pixel for a given resolution. Most people have better than 6/6 visual acuity so don't need that big a screen even if you do want to resolve every pixel.

The one I use is based on the Infocomm standards for good viewing distances, more specifically for "detailed viewing with clues", so spreadsheets, drawings where you don't need to resolve every detail because of contextual information. For watching moving video they suggest a smaller screen still.

It's also worth considering the visual angle - their approach gets you a screen that fills about 27 degrees horizontally, so it engages some of your peripheral vision too. That can be good for films, but can also mean you have to "scan" the image more.

Personally I think they're oversizing a bit. I also recognise that most people want a larger screen than the 75 guideline comes up with and are willing to accept worse-looking standard-def telly to get more benefit from high def.

I'm undecided about 4K for telly. It's genuinely useful for detailed PC work, for digital signage, video production and for simulation applications, but I just don't know if it really makes telly that much better, especially given that there's so little content. It feels like another attempt by the manufacturers to convince people to buy another new telly.

stickyfiddle

Sporky said:

I'm undecided about 4K for telly. It's genuinely useful for detailed PC work, for digital signage, video production and for simulation applications, but I just don't know if it really makes telly that much better, especially given that there's so little content. It feels like another attempt by the manufacturers to convince people to buy another new telly.

All of this, and especially the bold bit. Ever since flatscreen HD stuff kicked in 10 years ago they've been trying to move the market closer to the mobile phone / laptop thing where they want you to upgrade all the time. But they're forgetting that whatever TV you have you can still only watch the same output the TV & film people create, and ultimately a good story and script always trumps clever shiny things for their own sake.

Myranda

I sit PC distance from the screen mostly... So about 2' or lesd

So a 28 inch 4K screen looks amazing as long as I have a 4K or FHD source the scaler on that screen/in the GPU (never quite know where the hand-off occurs with such a setup) manages even to do a good job with DVD quality sources. 

The screen is just big enough that text is readable without windows scaling. 

Sporky

Myranda said:

So a 28 inch 4K screen looks amazing as long as I have a 4K or FHD source the scaler on that screen/in the GPU (never quite know where the hand-off occurs with such a setup) manages even to do a good job with DVD quality sources.  

Depends how each is set. The screen will likely have a few different modes, probably including 1:1, where a full HD signal will only fill the middle 25%. Similarly you can set the GPU to behave however you want - quite a few graphics chipsets will always output the display's native resolution, even if you set a different one in display properties. Windows is first rendered at the resolution you choose, then upscaled by the GPU to what the display wants. It's not the norm but it's not particularly rare.

I've seen some really weird stuff from some screens recently - mostly commercial or commercial hybrids. Screens with a preferred resolution lower than their native resolution, screens that prefer 6-channel audio even though they have only two speakers (actually, that one didn't include stereo in its accepted formats), even a set of 1080p panels that accept some 4K resolutions. Didn't expect that last one!

Axe_meister

For me it's HDR that makes the real difference, hence why OLED is so much better than LED. A 1080p HDR screen looks so much better than a 4k non HDR.

Sporky

Is anyone broadcasting HDR?

OLED looks better than LCD largely because it's emissive and has blacker blacks, so you get a much higher genuine-on-screen contrast ratio.

HDR is a subset of HDMI2.0a - I didn't know there were tellies and sources with that onboard already let alone content.

Myranda

Sporky said:

Myranda said:

So a 28 inch 4K screen looks amazing as long as I have a 4K or FHD source the scaler on that screen/in the GPU (never quite know where the hand-off occurs with such a setup) manages even to do a good job with DVD quality sources.  

Depends how each is set. The screen will likely have a few different modes, probably including 1:1, where a full HD signal will only fill the middle 25%. Similarly you can set the GPU to behave however you want - quite a few graphics chipsets will always output the display's native resolution, even if you set a different one in display properties. Windows is first rendered at the resolution you choose, then upscaled by the GPU to what the display wants. It's not the norm but it's not particularly rare.

I've seen some really weird stuff from some screens recently - mostly commercial or commercial hybrids. Screens with a preferred resolution lower than their native resolution, screens that prefer 6-channel audio even though they have only two speakers (actually, that one didn't include stereo in its accepted formats), even a set of 1080p panels that accept some 4K resolutions. Didn't expect that last one!

Well windows is set to render at 4k (for that screen) output over display port to a 4k monitor which one would hope means it's all done scaling at that point so I guess dvd image must be gpu side... Probably... 

One good thing about buying high-end monitors is manufacturers I think are expected to make more rational choices when it comes to inputs and panel types... And get away with odd choices less 

MrSwanson

Thoughts on this? http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Search/searchTerm/538%252F9465.htm

english_bob

Sporky said:

I'm undecided about 4K for telly. It's genuinely useful for detailed PC work, for digital signage, video production and for simulation applications, but I just don't know if it really makes telly that much better, especially given that there's so little content. It feels like another attempt by the manufacturers to convince people to buy another new telly.

I'm absolutely not sold on 4K- it makes TV worse. My father in law is a bit of an AV gadget lover, so he had to have a 4K TV, but once you've watched the few things on Youtube's 4K channel you're stuck with watching stuff that's been produced at a lower resolution upscaled so you can see all the flaws.

I watched The Theory Of Everything in 4K and couldn't get away from the fact that it looked like a 1970s episode of Doctor Who- everyone was clearly wearing a wig, a costume and make up, every scene was taking place on a set. Films should be immersive, and for me anyway, 4K is an obstacle to that. At least until stuff starts getting made specifically for 4K.

Sporky

A lot of it is already shot in 4K; I was at IBC (big broadcast technology show) last year and people were already dealing with 8k and 12k transport, storage and editing.

I did find even with my plasma (which must be 8 years old now) that getting the image settings right is critical. Out of the box (well, bubblewrap - it was an ex-demo bargain) it made films look like Eastenders. All sorts of advanced modes that removed that film "sheen" somehow.

Then there's the HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 malarkies going on which just adds more complexity and confusion. HDMI 2.0 is already inadequate.

Myranda

Or stuff is shot on film... Some brilliant conversions out there... 

I'd say if your 4k TV makes TV worse then it either needs setting up properly, or has a terrible scaler. 

I'm currently watching a dvd of a 1990s TV show on a 4K screen and it looks great (with the caveat that it was filmed on poor film stock... But it definitely looks a huge improvement on the 90s broadcast). Given how much scaling it has to do I can't imagine that a modern digital TV signal (likely much higher resolution) is worse without the screen being mostly to blame

octatonic

english_bob said:

Sporky said:

I'm undecided about 4K for telly. It's genuinely useful for detailed PC work, for digital signage, video production and for simulation applications, but I just don't know if it really makes telly that much better, especially given that there's so little content. It feels like another attempt by the manufacturers to convince people to buy another new telly.

I'm absolutely not sold on 4K- it makes TV worse. My father in law is a bit of an AV gadget lover, so he had to have a 4K TV, but once you've watched the few things on Youtube's 4K channel you're stuck with watching stuff that's been produced at a lower resolution upscaled so you can see all the flaws.

I watched The Theory Of Everything in 4K and couldn't get away from the fact that it looked like a 1970s episode of Doctor Who- everyone was clearly wearing a wig, a costume and make up, every scene was taking place on a set. Films should be immersive, and for me anyway, 4K is an obstacle to that. At least until stuff starts getting made specifically for 4K.

Try squinting.

Chalky

Myranda said:

Or stuff is shot on film... Some brilliant conversions out there... 

I'd say if your 4k TV makes TV worse then it either needs setting up properly, or has a terrible scaler. 

I'm currently watching a dvd of a 1990s TV show on a 4K screen and it looks great (with the caveat that it was filmed on poor film stock... But it definitely looks a huge improvement on the 90s broadcast). Given how much scaling it has to do I can't imagine that a modern digital TV signal (likely much higher resolution) is worse without the screen being mostly to blame

What is the make and model of TV?

Myranda

Chalky said:

Myranda said:

Or stuff is shot on film... Some brilliant conversions out there... 

I'd say if your 4k TV makes TV worse then it either needs setting up properly, or has a terrible scaler. 

I'm currently watching a dvd of a 1990s TV show on a 4K screen and it looks great (with the caveat that it was filmed on poor film stock... But it definitely looks a huge improvement on the 90s broadcast). Given how much scaling it has to do I can't imagine that a modern digital TV signal (likely much higher resolution) is worse without the screen being mostly to blame

What is the make and model of TV?

That I'm watching? Is a 4K monitor Asus Swift PG27A