Quantcast
Should I get a 1080p TV or a 4K TV for gaming?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Should I get a 1080p TV or a 4K TV for gaming?

What should I do?

Buy 4k tv and get ps4k 40 26.85%
 
Get 1080p TV, stick with your current PS4 61 40.94%
 
It's too early, wait for more information. 48 32.21%
 
Total:149
LemonSlice said:
You know how 4K TV demos in stores are mostly still camera shots? That's because in motion (and games are mostly in motion) you can't tell any difference whatsoever.

I think 4K is stupid, and I also think big TVs are stupid so it kinda goes hand in hand. You can improve the picture by a large margin just by learning how to properly set up the TV and your devices.

 

It's easy to say 4K is stupid now, but it will be the standard eventually. Imagine saying "oh yeah, color television is nice, but I prefer my movies being black and white".



Around the Network
Hardcore_gamer said:
Qwark said:

Get a samsung JU7500 it has a marvelously low input lag for a 4k tv. Something that most 4k tv's don't have due to the lack of quick upscaling. If you go for a 1080p TV look for what is cheap and gets good reviews.

I've 55 inch js9000 and it has got low input lag too and really good quality tv 

That's an even better TV,  but he said he didn't want to spend to much money on a TV. I myself have a UH7500 even though it isn't HDR, native 4K content looks very impressive. In about six years I will probably buy a higher class TV with HDR and a TV that is able to output rec2020.

 

Be sure to calibrate that TV the right way, makes a lot of difference. For refference search for the cave 4k on google it's truely amazing how sharp it is. To me 4k has reached a point in which the picture of a TV can look actual real.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Ruler said:
hisense has cheap 4k tvs

Don't ever get Hisense TV.... really bad motion blur and just dreadful overall experience.

Better off going with Samsung or Vizio, I heard that Sony have really up their quality with 2015-16 TV's.

 



Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA

LemonSlice said:
You know how 4K TV demos in stores are mostly still camera shots? That's because in motion (and games are mostly in motion) you can't tell any difference whatsoever.

I think 4K is stupid, and I also think big TVs are stupid so it kinda goes hand in hand. You can improve the picture by a large margin just by learning how to properly set up the TV and your devices.

 

I disagree for the most part. You are right that every TV needs to be properly calibrated. But native 4k does provide a better picture than native 1080p. Besides if you look at greenery in 1080p, it's a bit fuzy due to the complexity of plants.

A bigger screen gives more immersion and with 4k you can make sure a 50 inch TV looks great even if you are 2m away from it. Pixelcount is less obvious in moving pictures but the difference between 4k and 1080p is big enough. I would say it is bigger than 720p vs 1080p in pixelcount and for the eye itself. 8k on the other hand will be bullshit, since your eye is biological not advanced enough to distinguish 4k and 8k in motion. But 4k if the content is native, is defenitly visible.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

SvennoJ said:
Instead of 48" 4K, why not go 120" 1080p. Projectors aren't that expensive anymore and quite good for gaming nowadays. For example Optoma GT1080 currently $699
http://www.projectorcentral.com/optoma_gt1080_projector_review.htm
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/optoma-1080p-dlp-gaming-projector-white/1584026.p?id=1219503833396&skuId=1584026

4K console gaming isn't going to happen anytime soon. Current 4K UHD blu-rays are mostly uprezzed from 2K masters, no real improvements in resolution, only color reproduction. However HDR standards are not yet set in stone with various formats competing, and current displays can't even fully render rec.2020 yet.

Buying an affordable 4K TV now, will very likely set you up with one that won't be able to display the full 4K blu-ray spec. That 48" Samsung doesn't advertise with HDR nor 10 bit color, meaning the best feature of 4K blu-ray, the increased color range, can't be displayed.

If you really want a 4K tv now, make sure it has HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, HDR and a 10 bit panel.
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/what-is-hdr-tv/
Their advice: Sounds Messy. Should I Wait? Yeah, probably.

This. THIS. And MOTHERFUCKING THIS. 

6 months ago I had the same desire to upgrade my 42'' TV. It was great at the time, but I was being suckered in with all the 4K on the cheap hype. Its all BS.

Get a projector, and watch movies / games on whatever 100'+ screen size you think is comfortable. 

Also good to see someone else who knows about blurays and how they are formatted. Hundreds of some of my favorite movies I have yet to own because they still have a ghastly 2k tranfer. Its pathetic. Notice how a lot of movies are now being ''rereleased'' with 4K tranfer being the selling tag, despite plenty of movies being released from 4K or sometimes even 8K tranfers. 

Playing Vanishing of Ethan Carter and SOMA on a 129'' screen was incredible on 1080p or even 720p at MAX. Super immersive. 

Get yourself a projector. Paint the walls dark is you have to and sit back an enjoy. You shouldn't worry about 4K because, well simply put, the industry doesn't care about 4K either. The manufacuters know 4K is a dud and want to shift stock to make room for the next gimmick. 



Around the Network
yvanjean said:
Ruler said:
hisense has cheap 4k tvs

Don't ever get Hisense TV.... really bad motion blur and just dreadful overall experience.

Better off going with Samsung or Vizio, I heard that Sony have really up their quality with 2015-16 TV's.

 

there are better now and cheaper



TomaTito said:
SvennoJ said:

Not a good idea yet, they still have issues with burn in. At least according to cnet
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-eg9600/
The manual reads: "If a fixed image displays on the TV for a long period of time, it will...become a permanent disfigurement on the screen. This...burn-in is not covered by the warranty." It advises owners to avoid displaying 4:3 aspect ratio images and other fixed images for longer than an hour at a time. I didn't actually "test" burn-in in my review sample, but it didn't seem to retain static images as badly as plasmas I've tested in the past.

Was not aware of that, thanks for the tip. Guess I know who to bother whenever I need to buy a new display!
It's always best to wait with technology, but sometimes you have to buy something and if I had to right now I would get an OLED.

Still like you mentioned before, waiting for 4K/HDR/etc to be more extent, mainstream and standard would be the best option to go.

And better get the flat version, curved is just marketing.
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-ef9500/

yeah flat is better, my walls aren't curved!

They did also say that it is the best display they've ever tested, yet when I drop 3 grand on a tv I would like it to last. I have had the burn in problem before with the Panasonic TH-50PX75U. There was still lots of 4:3 content on HD cable back then and I didn't like zoom cutting of the top and bottom or that ugly stretch mode. Result, two visible side panels in 16:9 mode, darker than the middle of the screen. Fading at a different rate I guess. The sides have faded too by now since all content changed to 16:9. It's certainly not as nice anymore as it was 7 years ago. Which is also a problem with OLED, how do they look after 10,000 hours or 20,000 hours.

OLED is the best for a dark room though, I wish I had those black levels on my projector. Yet for day time living room environment you might be better of with an LED HDR screen as they can get much brighter. Black levels won't get you anything with a lot of ambient light.

OLED for home theater, LED for day time always on TV. CRT for gaming :p



I bought a 48" 4k Samsung JU6500 and both Wii U and Xbox One games look awesome in game mode, which gives me a very good input lag. It is actually even better than my old 1080p display for gaming. I think you should look for a good 4k TV because this way you will be ready for the future. Also, 720p and 1080p will look pretty much like if you were playing on actual 720p or 1080p displays, which is an advantage compared to 1080p displays with 720p sources and vice-versa, since in game mode each pixel from a 720p image will a 3x3 pixels square on a 4k TV and from a 1080p image will be a 2x2.

Just make sure that the TV has low input lag in game mode, because without enabling it, most games are almost unplayable due to the delay.

Here is the review for the TV I bought: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ju6500

You can also search other models in this same website.



Skratchy said:

It's easy to say 4K is stupid now, but it will be the standard eventually. Imagine saying "oh yeah, color television is nice, but I prefer my movies being black and white".

Heck no, color is something that's just natural and adds more to the picture in representation and information than any difference in resolution ever did. When early color TVs were out though, most of the TV programming was still in B&W, so your cliched rhetoric doesn't make sense. 

Besides, black and white cinematography is an art in itself, and looks beautiful when shot with knowledge and intent, there's nothing wrong with people who prefer the look of movies shot in black and white.



Qwark said:
LemonSlice said:
You know how 4K TV demos in stores are mostly still camera shots? That's because in motion (and games are mostly in motion) you can't tell any difference whatsoever.

I think 4K is stupid, and I also think big TVs are stupid so it kinda goes hand in hand. You can improve the picture by a large margin just by learning how to properly set up the TV and your devices.

 

I disagree for the most part. You are right that every TV needs to be properly calibrated. But native 4k does provide a better picture than native 1080p. Besides if you look at greenery in 1080p, it's a bit fuzy due to the complexity of plants.

A bigger screen gives more immersion and with 4k you can make sure a 50 inch TV looks great even if you are 2m away from it. Pixelcount is less obvious in moving pictures but the difference between 4k and 1080p is big enough. I would say it is bigger than 720p vs 1080p in pixelcount and for the eye itself. 8k on the other hand will be bullshit, since your eye is biological not advanced enough to distinguish 4k and 8k in motion. But 4k if the content is native, is defenitly visible.

Well... I watch TV 2-4 meters away from a 32 inch TV and feel the 1080P is certainly worth it. If I wanted something like a 40 inch I would see the difference, but since there is no point in big TVs there's no point in 4K. At least that's the way I see it. My beef is ridiculously big TVs and ridiculously big phones and ridiculously big anything (yes, even boobs). It seems wasteful and decadent to me, the TV should not command your place of residence.