Looking to buy a 65" 4k Ultra HD TV

[dzachau]

I am looking to buy a 65" 4K Ultra HD TV. I want to get the best "bang for the buck." I walked into Best Buy and am overwhelmed with Samsung models surrounding a GIANT curved TV display. All the 4k Ultra HD TVs have great pictures and so I left the store unsure of where to put my money. I have heard that the curved TV concept is primarily hype. In the store the picture looked superior to the flat TV next to it??


Questions:

What is the latest flat Samsung 65" 4k Ultra HD TV out there currently? [I see a model UN65HU8500 on the shelf at Best Biuy, but Samsung says there is a UN65HU9000]

Should I look at the more expensive curved TV as superior to the flat TV models?

Do other manufacturers make a superior 4k Ultra HD TV to Samsung to the point that I will notice a picture and viewing quality difference?

thanks for your input on this!

[october262]

sony has one too - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=65%22+4K+Ultra+HD+TV.&_dyncharset=UTF-8&...=960&keys=keys

[addu]

Better buy VU 4k 65 inches curved tv. It is much better with lot of features and cheaper too. And its curve look more natural then the curves of samsung.

[michaeljtaylor]

I just bought that model UN65HU8550 the 8550 is the exact same as the UN65HU8500 the 8500 is sold by walmart, bestbuy, Costco, etc. (its a marketing thing) I got a black Friday deal on it from amazon ($2297) you can get it cheaper at places like niceelectronics.com or eastcoasttvs.com but you will get a lower quality screen and not a Samsung screen. (they call it the Samsung screen lottery) so beware of a very low price (if buying online)

anyway I also was considering the curved screen model but everything I read indicated it was gimmicky and it didn't actually add to the quality and in fact could diminish viewing at certain angles. so I decided to stick with a flat panel and not a curved model...

I set this tv up using settings outlined in a cnet forum about tv calibration... and all I can say is WOW.. this thing looks incredible... I would highly recommend this tv

if you decide to get it I would recommend using the settings in this forum post
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-19410_102-630044/samsung-un60hu8550-picture-settings/?tag=...;threadListing

you can also follow this guys recommendations from an amazon review, but I just used the cnet settings as my viewing room is on the dark side
the review is by FALCON on April 22, 2014, it should be the first review in the list.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN60HU8550-60-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00IN2WIXY/ref=sr_1_2?...ustomerReviews



hope this helps

Mike

[gll99]

Have they finalized the new HDMI (HDCP 2.2) standard yet? I'm reluctant to even consider a 4K tv until I know all the connectors will work with the new BD players / 4K capable discs or whatever they'll call the new equipment

[lingyi]

Have they finalized the new HDMI (HDCP 2.2) standard yet? I'm reluctant to even consider a 4K tv until I know all the connectors will work with the new BD players / 4K capable discs or whatever they'll call the new equipment

+1

Until the HDCP 2.2 is finalized it's highly likely your 4K HDTV is already obsolete. Also, unless you're planning to sit 2ft away from your 65", you'll receive ZERO benefit.

Recommend visiting avsforum.com for more about why 4K isn't ready yet and what's the best 65" HDTV to get (other than a plasma)

[sophisticles]

Also, unless you're planning to sit 2ft away from your 65", you'll receive ZERO benefit.

Recommend visiting avsforum.com for more about why 4K isn't ready yet and what's the best 65" HDTV to get (other than a plasma)

I keep seeing responses such as yours and I have no idea what they mean. I heard the same thing when 1080p was first coming to the market, people claiming similar steaming piles of rubbish like you just did only with regards to 1080p compared to SD, now I'm hearing it again from people trying to dismiss 4k.

Ii have a buddy that bought a $5000 4k TV and I got my hands on a bunch of 4k content to watch on it and so long as you have content to watch, there is a definite benefit to 4k.

If you want to stick with 1080p, 720p or whatever you think is perfectly adequate that's fine but don't make blanket statements that make no sense.

2ft from a 65" TV? What are you trying to say, that if he sits 12ft from the TV he won't notice the difference? Maybe your eyes can't tell the difference but I certainly could.

[michaeljtaylor]

not too concerned with hdcp 2.2, the tv has options for an evolution kit and one connect upgrades to help future proof it.
also didn't have the option to wait as my current tv was acting up... if you can afford to wait then by all means wait, but we all don't have that luxury. I wanted the best set I could buy now within my budget.

[fritzi93]

Have they finalized the new HDMI (HDCP 2.2) standard yet? I'm reluctant to even consider a 4K tv until I know all the connectors will work with the new BD players / 4K capable discs or whatever they'll call the new equipment

In a nutshell.

I think that it's sensible to hold off a while longer unless one needs to replace a dead TV *now*. With no UHD BD players on the market until (supposedly) 4th quarter next year, one can't be sure a UHD set one buys now will be fully compatible. And without UHD (4k) movie content, what's the point? Upscaling? Some limited Netflix 4k content at 25 Mb/s? (Lots of people will have to upgrade their broadband and/or their routers to stream it. Or run new cabling.) Meh.

As for that execrable curved TV idea: No, No, No!

[netmask56]

A friend had a 4k curved screen on trial (a Samsung) and it was horrible unless you sat right in front of it and very close. The local HDTV transmissions looked good under these conditions. The upscaling wasn't bad even on old Humprey Bogart B/W 1940's movies. He swapped it out for a 165cm flat screen 4K - looks much better especially for guests sitting on the side of the sweet spot. I think I will wait until real 4k material is available and standards sorted out.

[gll99]

Since HDCP 2.2 and the likelyhood of a new hdmi connector in next gen sets was an issue for me, I haven't done a whole lot of research on "4K" televisions but I recall reading something about 3D capable sets. Maybe someone could shed more light on this because I don't want to misinform but apparently if you are into 3D one advantage is you will get full 1080p 3D instead of half the 1080p resolution. I stand to be corrected but gimmick or not, if true, it could sway some into making an early jump.

[jman98]

My understanding is that ALL 4k TVs support current 3D BluRay technology. I've read some stuff elsewhere where non-techies seem to not understand that, but unless there is some way to deliberately break 3D compatibility, as far as I know all 4k TVs support it whether you care to use it or not.

[gll99]

My understanding is that ALL 4k TVs support current 3D BluRay technology. I've read some stuff elsewhere where non-techies seem to not understand that, but unless there is some way to deliberately break 3D compatibility, as far as I know all 4k TVs support it whether you care to use it or not.

The point I'm making is that (according to my understanding) current 1080p 3D capable televisions only delivers 1/2 the resolution in 3D but 4K supposedly provides the full 1080p in 3D. I'm just not sure if this is true but it would be an advantage to getting a 4k set if a buyer is really into 3D.

[Cornucopia]

RE: 3D-on-4k, I haven't done any in-depth research to verify. My guess, however, is that both are "premium" technologies to standard HDTV, but since 4k is inherently a more bandwidth-costing and larger shift to the technology design of the pixels, by comparison 3D is fairly trivial to add on. Doesn't mean there AREN'T ANY non-3D 4k TVs out there, but it isn't likely. Note that this is with CURRENT forms of direct 3D display: Active LC, and FPR Passive polarized. Displays using full Z-screen or future displays using various forms of autostereo have much more complicated tech involved in their production (and would be accordingly that much cooler as well as $$$).

RE: curved screens, physics dictates that curved screens may give you a BETTER picture if you happen to be in the sweet spot but a WORSE picture elsewhere, while flat screens can give you a VERY GOOD picture over a wider range, and only give BAD picture at the extreme periphery. Plus, while the optics in the eye make use of a curved screen, the optics used in almost all photography/videography/cinematography is geared toward working with flat images. If one wanted to truly improve the visual experience via a curved application of the reproduction chain, it would only be optimal when ALL the elements in the chain are designed with that in mind. For now, file this one under "marketing gimmick red herring".

RE: HDCP 2.2, If they know what's good for them, any system using this is going to limit its applicability ONLY to a copy-protected 4k title, so all 1080p60 and lower titles should be using older versions anyway. Otherwise, they will end up with a consumer revolt on their hands. In fact, even with 4k-only changes, I see massive returns and complaints/disappointment/disgruntlement ahead, to the point where 4k's consumer future is shakey. In a world where economic CE success = consumer uptake and consumer uptake = consumer confidence & satisfaction, the idea of putting out something sure to bring dissatisfaction seems pretty stupid.

Scott

[newpball]

4K TVs for viewing published material - too early.
Curved screens - way too early (and it may never take off).

I would only recommend 4K now if you are deep into editing.

[jman98]

The point I'm making is that (according to my understanding) current 1080p 3D capable televisions only delivers 1/2 the resolution in 3D

It depends on whether the 1080p 3D TV supports active (full resolution) or passive (half resolution). Vizio was making passive 3D HDTVs. I have one. I like it fine. Other companies like Samsung were using active technology which is full resolution. Honestly, I doubt that the vast majority of people could tell any difference on an A/B type test. But yes, 4K technology should support active (full resolution) 3D technology.

I'm not sure that this is a plus though as I like the passive system a lot. The glasses are cheap and easy to get and you don't have to worry about battery life like you do in the active glasses, but I have no idea what the expected battery life is for that technology any way. The passive glasses do not use batteries. They're exactly the same as what you get in a 3D movie theater.

[fritzi93]

The point I'm making is that (according to my understanding) current 1080p 3D capable televisions only delivers 1/2 the resolution in 3D but 4K supposedly provides the full 1080p in 3D. I'm just not sure if this is true but it would be an advantage to getting a 4k set if a buyer is really into 3D.

Yeah, with passive 3D (circularly polarized glasses), one eye sees the even horizontal lines, the other sees the odd lines. So it's half- resolution unless one buys the LG marketing stuff about "image fusion". I have a 65" LG passive set and can see the lines, along with stair-stepping diagonal lines (a dead giveaway), if I approach to ~ 4 feet away from the set while playing a 3D Blu-Ray. At that same distance, I can't yet make out the individual horizontal lines or stair-stepping with 1080p 2D Blu-Ray. Passive 3D still looks darn good to me, and approximately equates to 720p on a 1080p set.

Half-resolution for passive 3D in 1080p is the one serious objection that active 3D proponents have as to passive. Of course, active has its own drawbacks: increased crosstalk, flicker, expensive glasses, out-of sync glasses on occasion, dim 3D picture (due to alternately blanking the left and right lenses of the active glasses).

Passive 3D on a 4k set would not have that limitation, since you're doubling the lines, (in addition to doubling the pixels in each line).

I should think that it would be wise for manufacturers to use passive 3D for 4k sets, if they're going to offer 3D.

[Cornucopia]

I concur.

Scott