Is 4k even worth it for a tv?
>>53367215
Looks nice. Too bad hardly anything is in 4k yet.
/thread
the quality is pretty amazing on the in store models I've seen but the price will probably drop by 90% in a couple of years so no point in buying one yet
No, not right now. But in a couple years it will be standard, so it won't matter either way.
>>53367215
If you absolutely need a 60+ inch TV? Yes. Anything smaller is 1080. Even a 65" at 1080 is good if you're not sitting around 10ft back.
There is barely any 4k content out there. If you you need a TV right now and you don't have one, you might as well get a 4K one considering the price difference is small but if you already have a TV don't waste your time unless you are changing because you want a bigger one or something and you aren't upgrading just for 4K because it isn't huge of a deal with so little content.
If you already have a nice TV just keep what you have for a year or 2 and by then not only will there be more content, but prices will be cheaper and maybe you might even be able to afford OLED.
>>53367215
Did you think 1080p was worth it when it first came out?
Me and my family can't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p
>>53367490
cause your tv is <60''
>>53367428
Yea I'm currently using an 480i crt that's finally on it's last leg(i said i wouldn't get another tv until something broke)
I'm looking for something in the 32" to 43" and will be using it to play games on my computer(upscaled from 1080p and at 60hz)
>>53367515
Yes it it, why would you want something bigger?
>>53367602
Why wouldn't you?
>>53367630
Because I'm sitting close enough to my TV so I don't need a giant screen
>>53367546
Yeah you could use an upgrade than. If you're looking for something budget I'd suggest a 43" Vizio series M, you can get 43" for $500 and it's decent for the price. It has low input lag so it's decent for games. Keep in mind though only 1 of their 5 HDMI inputs supports 4K at 60Hz though with the other 4 being limited to 4K at 30Hz.
>>53367215
Only if you're buying a really big TV and have a lot of money
Otherwise just get a Vizio for $300-400
I have a 4K tv and haven't yet used the 4K yet, I rarely watch tv anyways.
I do want to use a 4K monitor though.
>>53367454
That was different tho, thin screens looked sexy as hell compared to crt tv , and they could make em huge. Crt topped out at 36". Plus home theatre pcs didn't exist on crt tvs because they were blurry at hi res and 60hz is horrible on the eyes
>>53368054
>CRTs topped out at 36"
>HTPC didn't exist
This nigga doesn't know about the 40" Trinitron I had with an OG Xbox hooked up running XBMC
4 color tv's are a better investment if you want things to look better
4k does not apply to regular television, most DVD's and bluray, or really even most things your computer would do normally.
i mean you can do 4k gaming or digital media if you wanted, but its a better investment to get the better yellows out of your screen if you ask me
it always sounded dumb "what will yellow pixels do?" alot, they do alot, its really pretty
>>5336809
wow 640*480 at 40 inches in the wrong aspect ratio. Yeah I did not know that. Ah but that hella better than what I had back then. Before 1999 I had to play all my consoles on a 14" colour TV. After 99 I bought my first pc for about 2.5k had a 32MB riva tnt 2 and a 21" crt. Suhweet
>>53367215
If you're using a large screen or a projector, it's well worth it.
>>53368170
>4 colour pixels
>when the cells in the retina can only see 3 colours, none of them yellow
call me crazy, but i found the oled looked nicer than the 4k TVs. Just eyeballing when I saw them in person.
>>53368341
OLED is a display technology
4k is a resolution
You can have 4k OLED displays
I tried playing Fallout 4 on my parents Sony 4K TV and it was laggy as fuck.
There was a HUGE latency delay that made it almost impossible to play.
>>53367215
It looks good on my phone so yeah go for it.
>>53368384
You probably had a 240hz gimmick turned on
Just go with a high end 1080p TV.
4K is nice because it forces those prices down, and since companies like Comcast will never improve their internet - 4K content will never fully take over, not until Google Fiber enters nearly every city.
So for the next 5 years i'd stick with a pure 1080p TV that has all the best features and specs.
>>53368384
You remembered to switch it to game mode and ran it in its native 4k res so it doesn't have to scale the image, right kid? Yeah didn't think so
Not yet.
Prices will drop pretty fast over the next few years, not to mention OLED prices coming down for dem black levels. Besides, there isn't much 4k content yet anyways.
>>53368384
>Fallout 4
>laggy
You don't say?
>>53368448
Do you really not understand the difference between hardware latency and response, and the actual frame rate of the game itself.
>>53368443
Youtube 4k is plentiful. I've had 4k vids from my smart phone since 2013.
>>53368512
Ha I actually wrote both of those responses. And besides fallout 4 is not Lagg if you've a decent pc. My 290x gives plenty of frames at 1440p 144hz, so 4k wouldn't be an issue
>>53368547
Except I wrote one of those responses
>>53368522
>Youtube 4K
>Don't even get the full impact of 4K because the video is compressed to 20mpbs or something so it barely looks about the same as 1080p bluray
>All the content is crap you wouldn't even want to watch in 480p like faggots react to X
>>53368359
yeah i figured that much. Just know we won't get that yet.
>>53369038
Oh your one of those people that watches professional youtubers huh. Yeah no I'm to old for that shit. Plenty of stuff is recorded in 4k now simply because that's the default video format in shiny new smart phones.
>>53368564
And I wrote the other two.
>>53369720
>Implying 4k even matters on shitty smartphone cameras with shit sensor
Megapixels don't make a better picture.
>>53367215
CONSOLEFAGS DOING DAMAGE CONTROL EVERYWHERE
>>53369798
They do in broad daylight you fool. My note 3 took amazing video when I hiked the mountains of Canada last summer. Difference between the 1080p vids and 4 k is astounding. Still used 1080p for fast motion because 60 fps recording is still not available for 4k. Get on it quallcomm
>>53367215
Not right now. Not much is running at 4k so there isn't really a point. In the near future it'll become more common in a household.
>>53369862
Digital cameras in general are shitty in low light regardless of their how megapixels their cameras are. Megapixels are not a measure of how good an image is, it's a measure of how big an image is. A good standalone 1080p camera will produce a far better video than a phone recording in 4k because it's not the quantity of pixels that matter, it's the quality of the pixels.
>>53369966
Yeah kid that's some quality text recital you've got there. If the sensor is getting lots of light then a 4k video will look heaps clearer than 1080p one, even if the sensor is bigger. You can check that via the auto iso that the video was recorded in. All the vids I have that were shot in the mountains are at add good as you'll get iso 60. Tl:dr you're full of shit.
>>53367215
Depends on your usage.
I like the 4k content on Netflix / Amazon but there's not that much. If you have the money for it, gayming in 4k is pretty amazing.
Otherwise, no. It's too early.
i think i'll just get a super cheap $200 ish 1080p 32" tv and wait for better panels and better connectivity for computers
