Hey Guys/Gals I'm getting to drop around 3Gs on a Samsung Ultra 4K Curved 3D TV but before doing so I wanted to see if anyone else had a suggestion on another model and/or manufacturer. This is the one I was looking at: UN65HU8700FXZA http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65HU8700FXZA Also better pricing solutions, online or retail? Just wanted some ideas if possible from any tech friendly people out there & also thrifty shoppers . Thanks!
That's a good TV, its actually the one that I wish that I would've bought. My purchase was more impromptu and I got the HU7250, for an amazing price. If I were you I'd save $400 and get the HU8550. The curve is cool and all, but it doesn't become a real difference maker until around 75" IMO.
I have the 65" Sony 4K XBR. My brother has the 65" Samsung 4K flat. I have the 4K server so I can watch 4K content like movies but overall I can't find flaws in either. Sony is better on mine but he bought a soundbar and now it doesn't matter. What j hear is the curved TV are better for small rooms.
I don't think curved tvs add any value... mainly personal opinion, but generally supported by the tv geeks at AVS Forum. I skipped on 4k and instead got an 80 inch Vizio. It doesn't look as clear as the 4k in stores... but I don't care. It was a $3k tv, which I got on sale for $2k, and then got another $350 off because Sam's Club screwed up my order. The last $350 was "luck", but I spent about $1,700. If I need 4k, I'll need it in 3 years, and can get a cheaper better version then. Anyway, as for your choice, again I'm not sold on curved. I've had no problem with Vizio. The 80 incher is my second Vizio product. It doesn't feel quite as polished as a high-end Sony, Samsung, of course, but the Vizio 65 inch 4k option is currently $2,200 at Best Buy. If you've got the extra $1k to burn, good for you. I personally just don't see the point in spending that much more...
NO and no broadcast or cable networks will for a very long time. Some streaming services like Netflix offer a few programs in 4K, but you'd better have decently fast internet connection. Remember how people used to say that if you took a cassette tape and burned it to a CD..how the quality wouldn't get any better because it was originally recorded on a cassette...same principle here. Most programming will be HD unconverted to 4K for your TV and therefore the quality will not really be better. Early adoption is not a good idea with 4K unless you just want to brag that you own a 4K television set. At my work, we shoot a few projects in 4K, post in 4K, but export and air in HD. The majority of our programming is shot in HD, and to air in 4K would be a complete multi-million dollar systems and infrastructure overall on the equipment at our network, and with the FCCs broadcast spectrum. Funny thing - cable & Satellite companies will be able to deliver 4K signals...but none can deliver the 4K content to them. more info here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...nt-and-will-it-be-any-good-when-it-gets-here/
With a lack of 4K programming out there, you are better of getting a cheaper 1080P TV and having it ISF Calibrated!
I have to disagree. I recently bought a 49" Sony XBR-850B 4K display, one that Fry's had marked down by about $800 bucks just before Christmas, to replace the very old HD display in our bedroom that's going to one of our kids, and am damned glad I did. Why? 4K televisions upscale the signals they get. They upscale the signal coming from my Time/Warner DVR's, regardless of whether that signal is standard def, 1080i or 1080p, or our Bluray and DVD discs and the like. Sony's 4K sets do a particularly good job of doing this and the color is stunning. In other words, even though the content isn't 4K, at least not yet, everything looks better. Remember how DVD's looked better playing on a Bluray gadget? Same thing, except on steroids. To tell the truth, I've been very surprised at just how much better everything looks. You would have to pry that display off my wall along with my cold dead fingers.
Firmly disagree. Netflix is compressing the hell out of 4k but it still looks amazing. They require a 25mps connection which most cities offer. I've had gigabit internet for a few months and ATT will aggressively expand that across the country. All TV shows shot on film and every movie ever can be available in no time in 4K. They just have to run it through a digital scanner that is scanning at a 4K standard resolution and they likely already have those masters done. Even 16mm will look better in 4k. Most narrative TV shows are shot in 4K. Shows are using Sonys, REDs, Canon4ks, Alexis etc. The short of it is that a giant flood of content is ready to be distributed in 4k. More than you can watch in a year. People will have to continue look into watching things on their TV from online distributors and that will help when Apple, Google and ROKU release 4K media hubs. Compression formats are also getting better. RED can compress a 4K quality film on a USB stick. It also doesn't cost anything for a production house to export in 4K. It isn't hard for netflix to store and stream 4K content with Amazon's MASSIVE array of servers. We have been shooting red for 5 years and we're a web company. 4K is already here.
A 49 inch 4K TV? Don't you have to practically sit in the TV to be able to discern 4K? As for my 2 cents. I'll take OLED over 4K. But what do I know I always preferred Plasma over the inferior LCD/LED tech.
they have 4k OLED. OLED is the type of display not resolution. the hot new technology from CES is Quantum Dot. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AQjMjgQTaUo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
i can't really tell too much of a difference from 4k and 8k, only when they had the 110 inch 8k <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GaILxO6nIuQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
