SvennoJ said:
OdinHades said:
Cheap 4K TVs have absolutely shitty image quality. If you have only 500 bucks for a TV, you're most likely better off with a good 1080p screen than some shitty 4K TV. Also the software on cheap 4K TVs is lacking most of the time. Prepare for lagging menus and stuff like that. On top of that, cheap 4K TVs don't have HDR, so they are not future proof in any way. If you don't want to buy yet another TV in 1-2 years, don't buy one without HDR.
That being said, 500 $ is a lot of cash. Why should anyone spend so much money if there isn't any need for it? Why buy a 4K TV now when your good ol' 1080p screen is working just fine? Most people just don't see the need for it, so most people will upgrade no sooner than when their old TV breaks down. Or they might not upgrade at all, because who's still watching TV these days, lol. It's just silly to go out and spend your money for something you don't need. It's also bad for the environment.
4K won't be the standard before 2020 at the very earliest. |
True, at this point a 4K tv mostly useful for a 4K console. Here we only have 1 experimental 4K tv channel with a few sports broadcasts. 4K streaming isn't much of an option with capped bandwidth nor is there much to choose from. 4K blu-rays have a big premium price tag and really most new movies suck, while old movies hardly benefit from a 4K release.
If you have $500 to spend, better spend it on VR for a new experience instead of an already outdated tv (hdmi 2.1 is already announced). Content wise they're about the same :)
|
Old 35mm film is about 4k in effective resolution so a good print and decent transfer to digital actually can be pretty good plus modern digital processes can clean up the images very nicely. Often better quality now than they have ever been.
