[X]Assistant

[zusicks438]

Good day.

"Big" TV in the living room has long been included every five years, so its characteristics are not interested in absolutely nothing. "He" is an old Thompson with a cathode ray tube.

Recently, it has become somewhat more frequent to watch movies and various TV shows downloaded from the Internet, so I decided that it was possible to change the TV for something more modern.

The question, actually, is as follows. Is it worth striking at Ultra HD, or in the coming years it will not be so relevant? I honestly have no idea whether there are any films now in free access in this format and whether their number will increase dramatically in the coming years, can anyone in the subject, orient. Do I understand correctly that movies in Full HD on 4K TVs will look pretty ugly?

Post has been editedzusicks438 - 11.02.15, 18:42

[yan_d]

Do not overpay for not the best Ultra HD, when you can take a decent Full HD. There is no content at the moment - you will find a dozen records of course, but this is all one. We only have HD television on satellite, Satellite is on Full HD, but not Ultra HD. Therefore, it makes no sense, it is difficult to blame Full HD in a bad image on a modern TV.

[zusicks438]

yan_d,
Yeah, thanks, I think so too, in general. I will consider Full HD.

[nick_bzhik]

He also came to similar conclusions, but he decided to order 4k telly all the same, with a reserve for the future (now there is practically no content in 4k anyway, and I need powerful iron, which I don’t have yet). In general, on Friday I will take LG 49UF675V, I hope I will not regret my decision

[jqproject]

Nick_bzhik @ 10.10.2015, 23:22

He also came to similar conclusions, but he decided to order 4k telly all the same, with a reserve for the future (now there is practically no content in 4k anyway, and I need powerful iron, which I don’t have yet). In general, on Friday I will take LG 49UF675V, I hope I will not regret my decision

what kind of fucking touches on future ones ??? when enough content appears in 4k, several generations of televisions (maybe technologies) will already be replaced and there will be something like 3D without glasses 400. and you will again buy everything with a reserve and so on

[nick_bzhik]

Full hd TVs with the same diagonal cost about the same as this and their only advantage - smart TV, which does not interest me at all because I connect the computer to the TV. Why not take 4k then?

[Pamupp]

zusicks438 @ 11.02.2015, 18:42

movies in Full HD on 4K TVs will look pretty ugly?

Any HD and FHD content on a UHD TV will look better than on a full, thanks to upskelling, come to the store and compare. As for the content, now all the films are actively sharpened for UHD, including the old ones that were always shot for the 8k movie theater format. As for terrestrial television, 4k is already running. As for quality, UHD TV is a priori better than fullka. Personal advice to avoid UHDs are models of the LG UF670 / 680/690 which have a lower matrix resolution and no support for the HEVC codec. Look in the direction of the 8-9 series of skins and the 8-9 series of Samsung on nanocrystals (the latter, by the way, have the ability to update hardware and all software with the help of vanconnect)

[Megalan]

Pamupp @ 10.10.2015, 11:05

Any HD and FHD content on a UHD TV will look better than on a full, thanks to upskelling, come to the store and compare.

Upscaling by definition cannot produce a very high-quality picture compared to an unstretched source. Especially if you look at it in a certain way, that upscaling with clever algorithms, that upscaling by blunt stretching is one nonsense, the difference is not noticeable.

Pamupp @ 10.10.2015, 11:05

As for terrestrial television, 4k is already running

We have essential Full HD channels can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of these, in the digital multiplex is exactly 0, all are available only via IPTV or satellite. What kind of 4K can we talk about?

Post has been editedMegalan - 11.10.15, 23:31

[globet]

I have 4K Philips.
Photos look just awesome! It is worth taking already for their sake ...

[me_zz_o]

It all depends on your content, availability of funds and the distance to the tele. 4K TV makes sense to take in the first place at least 60 inches, and secondly if you sit close, in the third if you have a video collection of 4K movies :)
In addition, the normal 4K panels now have only manufacturers predtopovyh and top-end telephones, and it is expensive.

[Pamupp]

Megalan @ 10.10.2015, 23:28

Upscaling by definition cannot produce a very high-quality picture compared to an unstretched source.

By definition, it can and gives. Once again for unbelievers, go and compare. Upskale if that, not a stupid interpolation of the frame, but an increase in resolution using frequency decomposition and Sharpe with a rather tricky algorithm.

[lupin]

After all, telephones are bought for at least 3-4 years, and 4K in 2016 will develop at full speed.
I think PHILIPS 49PUS7809 / 60 to buy, there are any lotions, it costs 49t .., with our course it’s just a magic price, I think the next few years everything will be more expensive. Similar telly for such a price and sold in FHD. 4K content seems to have already appeared, for example, the tricolor even has 4k channels and in every way higher resolution will appear more and more often. Well, I noticed Yeshe from the tablets that with higher resolution, the quality of colors and the viewing angle is slightly better (even if the content is the same)

Posted 01/01/2016 at 16:41 PM:

With our course it makes sense to take 4K (with a screen of 47), definitely. It is much harder to choose a TV set with a high-quality matrix and with good colors in the framework of 50-60t.r

[A.R.S]

What about the characteristics? For example, as far as I know, the budget 4K has a frequency of only 100 Hz ...

[Auux]

the projector should be taken FHD, 50 inches is .. funny: D
4K now it's like a washable sleeve: rofl:
And there’s almost no 4K content, and what is usually pinched)

[A.R.S]

Auux @ 01/04/2016, 19:10

the projector should be taken FHD, 50 inches is .. funny: D

It depends on what room, if you have money, then you can take 55 inches of TV, and what more is needed in an ordinary apartment? And why is the projector in a regular apartment? Will you watch only in a darkened room?

[Bi0]

[email protected], 18:41

After all, telephones are bought for at least 3-4 years, and 4K in 2016 will develop at full speed.
I think PHILIPS 49PUS7809 / 60 to buy, there are any lotions, it costs 49t .., with our course it’s just a magic price, I think the next few years everything will be more expensive. Similar telly for such a price and sold in FHD. 4K content seems to have already appeared, for example, the tricolor even has 4k channels and in every way higher resolution will appear more and more often. Well, I noticed Yeshe from the tablets that with higher resolution, the quality of colors and the viewing angle is slightly better (even if the content is the same)

Posted 01/01/2016 at 16:41 PM:

With our course it makes sense to take 4K (with a screen of 47), definitely. It is much harder to choose a TV set with a high-quality matrix and with good colors in the framework of 50-60t.r

And I first started watching TV only when the domra on New Year's holidays until January 11 opened access to all hd channels, access is now over and probably the beam on it is only to watch reviews and movies from the futuron, well, sometimes I watch TV shows, the last TV series is a real detective story. Basically now in 4k old films with a normal mass, such as avatars 5 element and others, for me personally I watch a movie that was shot by a digital camera, because the clarity of an analog camera is not considered. For any premiere you can drive in imax, there is no possibility to go to Moscow on 4dx. For me in a big house it is better to buy a projector for better quality, the sensations will be more pleasant.

[Jekvrn]

Firstly, if you take TV with the "backlog" for the future, you need to pay attention to
HDMI 2.0
As you know, the HDMI interface is widely used to connect to a TV. Most 4K TVs today use the HDMI 1.4 standard, which allows 4K video to be received, but with a maximum frequency of 25 frames per second (c / c). This is enough to view some 4K content, but may not be enough "for the future." The new version of HDMI 2.0 allows 4K processing at up to 60 frames per second. This is necessary for connecting to a computer and watching new films with an increased frame rate, which the film industry is starting to master. Like, for example, two Hobbit films shot at 48 fps.
HEVC / H.265
The new HEVC codec standard H.265 is the successor to MPEG4 and allows you to more effectively compress video signals. Maybe someone remembers the debate about the merits and differences between MPEG2 and MPEG4? The advent of HEVC largely marks a similar advancement in technology. In the future, not only 4K content, but also SD and HD are likely to be encoded using HEVC, which can provide higher image quality at lower digital video transmission speeds. Cable TV providers are not exactly lining up to offer 4K content, but this may change in the next few years. Some TVs will be able to support HEVC after software upgrades, but only very few 4K TVs today have a built-in HEVC decoder. You need hardware support for HEVC in 4K TV, if you want to avoid the hassle of connecting additional set-top boxes to your TV (via HDMI 2.0).
Without these two parameters, it will not be 4K TV.

Further size.
47 '' will be relevant only when the distance from the TV to 2m. Further, the human eye will perceive 4K as well as FullHD. Further worse. For clarity, look at the picture.

I had the opportunity to watch different TVs at home and I can say for sure that it makes no sense to consider 4K TV less than 60 ”.
This is my subugo opinion ...

Next question for connoisseurs)
I myself look after 4K TV. I came across this model.
DEXP U58B9900H here is the description from the sitehttp://dexp.club/Produ...-147-sm-DEXP-U58B9900H

The day before, I went shopping and talked to the sellers. To the surprise of one of the shops came across an intelligent, understanding seller.
He said that there is a Samsung matrix in the deksp. very simple level, but samsungovskaya. most likely 4 series. This is with regards to the most budget 4K dexp, which 3D does not hold.
In the same model, the matrix is ​​exactly a different level. support 3D, hdmi 2.0, HEVC / H.265
All this and a very attractive price (60 thousand rubles for 58 inches) pushes me to want to either wait for 65+ "or take this model (should be on sale soon).

Who thinks about this?

[antifoton]

"I myself look after 4K TV. I stumbled upon this model.
DEXP U58B9900H here is a description from the site "- Jekvrn

Found on the Internet an analogue of this TV - Hisense LTDN58K700XWTSE. Androyd 4 buckets.
Here are the reviews -http: //www.richersound...e/hise-ltdn58k700xwtse
Here you can see photos of good quality -http://www.boulanger.com/ref/1058383#

Post has been editedantifoton - 12.01.16, 07:28

[WileyFox]

Jekvrn
I am in a similar situation!
I want to look 55B9000H live, but I was much more interested in U58B9900H. UHD matrixes seem to be like only in 6 series of samsungs! While in Saratov not sold 58 ": (

Himself while configured to buy Sony 55W807C. I really want to go and see in real life what these HiSense boxes are.

[gantel]

Jekvrn @ 01/08/2016, 01:39

hdmi 2.0, HEVC / H.265

If globally everything goes well, then in 2 ... 3 years again all standards will change completely: hdmi 2.0 will no longer be today's hdmi 2.0, and h.265 will be different. How many times have it all been passed ... do not count. :)

If globally everything is not very good (to put it mildly), then in 2 ... 3 years there will be no television at all. :)

And the choice is yours. If there is a lot of money and they traditionally burn a pocket, then why not?