Ultra HD TV

[BMXTRIX]

Ignoring the silly discussion which Jeff just can't understand, I would go back to the original post and find out what the timeline is and what the room is like.

Are you really limited to 60"?
Smart functionality in TVs is becoming more of a standard vs. an option. I mean, a killer Roku player is $50, and they make money, so building it into a TV platform really isn't costing Samsung or Sony any real money, and you can choose to just not use it. So, plan on it being there.

If you are more about budget, then I would look for a decent model which fits your budget and is the largest size possible. This one jumped out at me from Sams:
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/70-1080p-smart-120hz-5-hdmi-wifi/prod20062126.ip?xid=plp1088-elec:product:1:2

A 70" Vizio, which is well reviewed, and should provide years of excellent quality.

I would make a point of going to Costco, Sams, and Best Buy, and the rest and just taking a look at what they have. I'm in agreement that LG isn't my favorite brand due to lousy reliability, but I've heard that they have improved in the last couple of years which is just good for everyone. So, I would take a close look at some of their options.

 

[Jeffrey S. Albaugh]

Buy what you want, but the fact is no other set tops OLED. Vizio, just doesn't come close. I like LG better then Vizio. If you wait about a year, there will be OLED's from about 6 diferent manuacturer's including Panasonic. At that point, the price of OLED will come down, and UHD's will drop like a bad habit. Like it or not, LG, who owns the OLED technology has allowed these other manufacturer's to produce them. I think that's very generous of LG.

 

[everettT]

Where in the world do you keep coming up with LG owns OLED tech?. You should probably read up a little about the tech. LG pays for its iterations of OLED to Universal Display Corp. There are several OLED manufactures and have been before LG ever came to market with a display. They were not even the first for consumer home OLED displays . Another interesting note in calibration, with OLED recalibration will typicallybe needed every 8k hours and yes all displays need calibration.

Buy what you want, but the fact is no other set tops OLED. Vizio, just doesn't come close. I like LG better then Vizio. If you wait about a year, there will be OLED's from about 6 diferent manuacturer's including Panasonic. At that point, the price of OLED will come down, and UHD's will drop like a bad habit. Like it or not, LG, who owns the OLED technology has allowed these other manufacturer's to produce them. I think that's very generous of LG.

 

[Jeffrey S. Albaugh]

Where in the world do you keep coming up with LG owns OLED tech?. You should probably read up a little about the tech. LG pays for its iterations of OLED to Universal Display Corp. There are several OLED manufactures and have been before LG ever came to market with a display. They were not even the first for consumer home OLED displays . Another interesting note in calibration, with OLED recalibration will typicallybe needed every 8k hours and yes all displays need calibration.

Wrong again, Batman. Global OLED Technology, LLC, owns & liscenses OLED, which is a subsidiary of LG Displays. They also own the newer, better OLED; is even better, and according to LG, will keep them at the top o OLED Technology or about another decade.

 

[BMXTRIX]

What about OLET technology? When you get one of those, the whole OLED and UHD technology debate will be over.

I will get a OLET display for sure. It will make UHD dead.

For what it's worth, it seems that OLED patents range across a long list of manufacturers:
The use of OLEDs may be subject to patents held by Universal Display Corporation, Eastman Kodak, DuPont, General Electric, Royal Philips Electronics, numerous universities and others.[100] There are by now thousands of patents associated with OLEDs, both from larger corporations and smaller technology companies.
FROM: Wikipedia

It does look like an agreement was made between LG Electronics and Global OLED to allow LG licensing of the patents, but I expect that much like other technologies, the patents are maintained by the individual companies that originally created them and Global OLED does not OWN those patents, but instead acts as a unified licensing agency to help turn those patents into cash for the various companies involved in using those OLED patents. LG certainly owns the majority of patents with their purchase of Kodak, but the majority of patents is not the same as owning a technology entirely.

Important: SAMSUNG IS NOT LISTED!
Since Samsung is not listed as a major licensee, it is possible that none of those LG owned patents are being utilized by Samsung.
Much like LCoS technology, Samsung could very well be implementing their own version of OLED which does not touch the patents owned by Global OLED. So, while Sony uses SXRD, and JVC uses LCoS, and Epson uses LCQ - They are all basically versions of LCoS, yet the difference is enough to not have patent issues. I expect the same is true when Samsung is creating millions of smart phone OLED displays, and has for years.

Much of the true details are hard to determine since we are limited to Google searches and Wikipedia for information.

Still, this is is all meaningless to the original post and what the person was looking for.

 

[Jeffrey S. Albaugh]

What about OLET technology? When you get one of those, the whole OLED and UHD technology debate will be over.

I will get a OLET display for sure. It will make UHD dead.

For what it's worth, it seems that OLED patents range across a long list of manufacturers:
The use of OLEDs may be subject to patents held by Universal Display Corporation, Eastman Kodak, DuPont, General Electric, Royal Philips Electronics, numerous universities and others.[100] There are by now thousands of patents associated with OLEDs, both from larger corporations and smaller technology companies.
FROM: Wikipedia

It does look like an agreement was made between LG Electronics and Global OLED to allow LG licensing of the patents, but I expect that much like other technologies, the patents are maintained by the individual companies that originally created them and Global OLED does not OWN those patents, but instead acts as a unified licensing agency to help turn those patents into cash for the various companies involved in using those OLED patents. LG certainly owns the majority of patents with their purchase of Kodak, but the majority of patents is not the same as owning a technology entirely.

Important: SAMSUNG IS NOT LISTED!
Since Samsung is not listed as a major licensee, it is possible that none of those LG owned patents are being utilized by Samsung.
Much like LCoS technology, Samsung could very well be implementing their own version of OLED which does not touch the patents owned by Global OLED. So, while Sony uses SXRD, and JVC uses LCoS, and Epson uses LCQ - They are all basically versions of LCoS, yet the difference is enough to not have patent issues. I expect the same is true when Samsung is creating millions of smart phone OLED displays, and has for years.

Much of the true details are hard to determine since we are limited to Google searches and Wikipedia for information.

Still, this is is all meaningless to the original post and what the person was looking for.

I would not include small screens & phones in the same breath as large OLED TV's. That's a totally different animal, and much easier to manufacture. Also, in terms of what you said about LCOS & SXRD. LCOS (DILA), was JVC's invention. Years later, Sony didn't want to use DLP technology, yet they also didn't want to call theirs LCOS, They want to be first with everything, so, instead, they called theirs SXRD. Now LG is going to come out with White OLED. Samsung chose to come out with SUHD; not OLED. IMHO, that was a mistake.

 

[everettT]

Again comparing resolution to a display tech. SUHD is the resolution. Just like LGs OLED UHD displays. The UHD is the resolution spec.

I would not include small screens & phones in the same breath as large OLED TV's. That's a totally different animal, and much easier to manufacture. Also, in terms of what you said about LCOS & SXRD. LCOS (DILA), was JVC's invention. Years later, Sony didn't want to use DLP technology, yet they also didn't want to call theirs LCOS, They want to be first with everything, so, instead, they called theirs SXRD. Now LG is going to come out with White OLED. Samsung chose to come out with SUHD; not OLED. IMHO, that was a mistake.

 

[Jeffrey S. Albaugh]

Dear Jeffrey,
I briefly read your response and quickly marked it as dumb. why?
Because I said two very simple facts a) LG manufacturing quality suck b) 4K is not always better than fhd.
I said absolutely nothing about display technology itself. I have plasma and I still prefer it over LED/LCD, but OLED can clearly delivery better image. That has nothing to do with what I said above.
Now, I am fully aware that only LG has OLED screens, but given another three facts I won't rush for OLED today
a) It's too expensive. ( cheapest one I could find and old 2015 model)
b) Oled longevity is still questionable. This is from LG Rep:

Maybe 2016 models would do better, but they are noticeably more expensive

Sorry, but I call your post dumb. How can you possibly say that you like Plasma better then 4K UHD or OLED?, That is a stupid statement. It means that you never really looked at OLED (to say something like that). Also, BSA, your Plasma's life span is 60K.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Again comparing resolution to a display tech. SUHD is the resolution. Just like LGs OLED UHD displays. The UHD is the resolution spec.

Minor confusion in your post. UHD is resolution, now it's there it's gets confusing (wholly Samsung fault) they call SUHD model range which their version of quantum dot, which is a minor improvement of regular led-lcd panel.
https://recombu.com/digital/article/what-is-samsung-suhd-quantum-dot-technology

I'm not going to respond anymore to obvious troll in here.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Sorry, but I call your post dumb. How can you possibly say that you like Plasma better then 4K UHD or OLED?, That is a stupid statement. It means that you never really looked at OLED (to say something like that). Also, BSA, your Plasma's life span is 60K.

Geez you really either don't get it, or are just stringing people along.

Screen resolution is NOT THE SAME as display technology.

Know what a 1920x1080 OLED is? It's 1920x1080, and it's not UHD and it's not plasma, and it's not LCD. It is OLED, it is full HD, but it's never going to be UHD, and it's never going to be plasma.

Why does someone prefer plasma to UHD LCD technology? Because the Kuro and other plasma displays have a black level which is far superior to LCD, and it has a much better viewing angle than LCD can deliver. As well, resolution only matters when compared to viewing distance. Someone sitting 12 feet away from a typical 55" or 60" television gets zero benefit by going UHD over Full HD. Yes, yes - I realize you want to argue this fact, but your opinion of the fact, doesn't change that it is a fact. It just makes you look really uneducated on the subject matter.

Now, OLED is a great looking piece of technology. I'm rooting for it. Moreso, I'm rooting for manufacturers other than LG to deliver on it, or for LG to really update their quality in manufacturing so their power supplies don't fail, and their pricey OLED displays to start failing the same way all their LCD displays have been. IMO, this is a big issue for LG, but I also believe that they have been improving as I haven't heard the same level of complaints as I have in previous years. So, thumbs up on them for that, but it still is a legitimate concern for people to have.

So, we have OLED displays which really do look great. They are a premium product and really are the best technology ever in terms of image quality. Their longevity is really not yet determined.
Behind them, we have plasma displays which have excellent image quality and the best black levels and contrast with great color. A step behind OLED? Yes, a step behind OLED. But, until OLED came to market, the Pioneer Kuro displays were the benchmark for quality. No other technology looked better. Period.
Then we have LCD displays and the long list of implementations of those LCD displays, including Samsung's most recent entry, SUHD, which is their take on quantum dot technology... which is really cool. But, it's still LCD, and it is still playing a game of catch-up to plasma, let alone OLED.

Not once in that previous discussion of technologies did I talk about resolution. Not once.

Resolution is a different discussion and is based entirely upon screen size as it relates to viewing distance. It's a pretty straightforward ratio, but the real benefits of UHD start to come into play at screen sizes that are about .66x the viewing distance in width. So, if you view from 9 feet and you have a screen 6 feet wide, then UHD matters.

Most people don't have screens anywhere that large, and sit further away than 9 feet. So, UHD is nearly irrelevant in terms of resolution.

The other benefits of the newest displays, which include HDR and the expanded color palette (REC2020 I think), may prove to be extremely valuable, and another item which OLED can use to drive the quality forward, regardless of resolution.

 

[slipperybidness]

Geez you really either don't get it, or are just stringing people along.

Screen resolution is NOT THE SAME as display technology.

Know what a 1920x1080 OLED is? It's 1920x1080, and it's not UHD and it's not plasma, and it's not LCD. It is OLED, it is full HD, but it's never going to be UHD, and it's never going to be plasma.

Why does someone prefer plasma to UHD LCD technology? Because the Kuro and other plasma displays have a black level which is far superior to LCD, and it has a much better viewing angle than LCD can deliver. As well, resolution only matters when compared to viewing distance. Someone sitting 12 feet away from a typical 55" or 60" television gets zero benefit by going UHD over Full HD. Yes, yes - I realize you want to argue this fact, but your opinion of the fact, doesn't change that it is a fact. It just makes you look really uneducated on the subject matter.

Now, OLED is a great looking piece of technology. I'm rooting for it. Moreso, I'm rooting for manufacturers other than LG to deliver on it, or for LG to really update their quality in manufacturing so their power supplies don't fail, and their pricey OLED displays to start failing the same way all their LCD displays have been. IMO, this is a big issue for LG, but I also believe that they have been improving as I haven't heard the same level of complaints as I have in previous years. So, thumbs up on them for that, but it still is a legitimate concern for people to have.

So, we have OLED displays which really do look great. They are a premium product and really are the best technology ever in terms of image quality. Their longevity is really not yet determined.
Behind them, we have plasma displays which have excellent image quality and the best black levels and contrast with great color. A step behind OLED? Yes, a step behind OLED. But, until OLED came to market, the Pioneer Kuro displays were the benchmark for quality. No other technology looked better. Period.
Then we have LCD displays and the long list of implementations of those LCD displays, including Samsung's most recent entry, SUHD, which is their take on quantum dot technology... which is really cool. But, it's still LCD, and it is still playing a game of catch-up to plasma, let alone OLED.

Not once in that previous discussion of technologies did I talk about resolution. Not once.

Resolution is a different discussion and is based entirely upon screen size as it relates to viewing distance. It's a pretty straightforward ratio, but the real benefits of UHD start to come into play at screen sizes that are about .66x the viewing distance in width. So, if you view from 9 feet and you have a screen 6 feet wide, then UHD matters.

Most people don't have screens anywhere that large, and sit further away than 9 feet. So, UHD is nearly irrelevant in terms of resolution.

The other benefits of the newest displays, which include HDR and the expanded color palette (REC2020 I think), may prove to be extremely valuable, and another item which OLED can use to drive the quality forward, regardless of resolution.

You're like the 5th regular AH member to TRY to explain to this troll that Resolution and Technology are 2 different items, and he is mixing them in his arguments as if they are an apples to apples comparison.

Yet, he just keeps making these arguments that don't hold water. He is confused and seems to be a troll too. The sad part is that people that may not know better may then spread his mis-information.

 

[3db]

I don't understand why Jeff fails to grasp the difference between a display specification and a display technology. They are mutually exclusive..

 

[Jeffrey S. Albaugh]

Minor confusion in your post. UHD is resolution, now it's there it's gets confusing (wholly Samsung fault) they call SUHD model range which their version of quantum dot, which is a minor improvement of regular led-lcd panel.
https://recombu.com/digital/article/what-is-samsung-suhd-quantum-dot-technology

I'm not going to respond anymore to obvious troll in here.

BSA: Are you referring to me as a troll? I resent this. First, in regard to SUHD from Samsung, IMHO, I don't like it. I think it's just a crutch. Back lighting, Edge Lighting & even Quantum Dot is just not so good. Those "technologies" refer to deficiencies in LCD/ LED TV's. None of this applies to OLED. No backlighting needed, nor Quantum Dot technologies, edge lighting are not needed in OLED sets. It will be obsolete soon. They also can not give you ininite Contrast Ratio, best of axis viewing, etc like with OLED. OLED's have the best colors & black levels are near perfect, including grey scale. Forget about Plasma. (you might as well talk about 8 tracks, Beta, etc.)

 

[BMXTRIX]

Forget about Plasma. (you might as well talk about 8 tracks, Beta, etc.)

No, 8 tracks compared to CDs are garbage.

But, plasmas compared to every LCD display to date is a better technology. They have great contrast, great off-axis viewing, they basically have all the benefits that OLED has except for a few differences.
Plasma will have better motion handling at this time still. It's a faster technology.
OLED will be brighter - period. OLED is not as bright as what LCDs can deliver, but certainly better than the Kuro displays.
OLED will have better than LCD image uniformity, but worse than plasma. It's the way LEDs work, but it won't be significant enough to matter.
The Kuro displays also are reported to have better shadow detail, but this is likely to change with future models.
OLED will deliver on HDR, which Kuro plasmas won't ever be able to deliver on. That will matter a good bit.

So, you are basically saying that your brand new sports car is going to beat down a Shelby Cobra because your sports car is well reviewed and brand new. That's not how it works. You put them on the track, you compare stats, then you put them head-to-head. In some areas the new car wins, but, the Shelby still can hold it's own, and may actually win when all things are considered.

Pioneer Kuros are the gold standard in many areas.
LG's OLED displays are the current gold standard, but they don't best the Kuro in all areas, which means someone looking for a BETTER display than their Kuro need to know that OLED may not be the way to go quite yet.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, although I've spend thousands on speakers and audio electronics over the years, $1K is about all I'm willing to pay for a TV as well.

We all have our thing. Some are willing to spend more on TV, some are not willing.

Black Friday is just around the corner.

I think any of the brands mentioned would be good.

For my house, I'm going all 4K Sony TV.

 

[TLS Guy]

BSA: Are you referring to me as a troll? I resent this. First, in regard to SUHD from Samsung, IMHO, I don't like it. I think it's just a crutch. Back lighting, Edge Lighting & even Quantum Dot is just not so good. Those "technologies" refer to deficiencies in LCD/ LED TV's. None of this applies to OLED. No backlighting needed, nor Quantum Dot technologies, edge lighting are not needed in OLED sets. It will be obsolete soon. They also can not give you ininite Contrast Ratio, best of axis viewing, etc like with OLED. OLED's have the best colors & black levels are near perfect, including grey scale. Forget about Plasma. (you might as well talk about 8 tracks, Beta, etc.)

I think calling you a troll is a bit strong, but you are getting in line for the acronym.

I will state for the record that I don't think there are TVs around at the moment that can deliver the overall quality of the plasma TVs we used to have.

Resolution is just one aspect and spec. To benefit from 4K you need a viewing distance too close for good audio. In my system they audio is designed to give a realistic 3D impression of the space. The closest optimal listening distance is 12 ft. So 12 ft and further delivers optimal sound. Therefore I do not reed a 4 K TV.

What I do want is really realistic colors wide viewing angle and depth of image with good blacks. For me plasma screens deliver. I'm yet to see a screen using other technology that would satisfy me the way my three Plasma screens do.

I bought this Fujitsu Plasma Vision screen in January 2006. It was originally in my studio until I replaced it with the very last of the absolute top of the line Panasonic 65" TVs. That screen is now giving excellent service in our secondary viewing room in our Eagan residence.

It still gives an absolutely superb picture.

In the studio I put in the largest and best Plasma screen I could.

I was so pleased with it I bought a midrange Panasonic Plasma for the primary viewing area at Eagan.

There is nothing about the current generation of TVs that would make me want to change my Pre/pros and all the HDMI cables. Don't even talk about the nightmare of connecting everything to the TV and sending the sound back to the pre/pros. After set up the only thing a TV needs is the on/off button. Screens should be the video equivalent of a speaker in a well designed AV system.

Talking of which compared to the realism the audio can provide as its end of AV there is no screen that can come remotely close to that realism as the V part of the equation and I highly doubt it ever will. So in any event the audio gives by far the best return on investment, so all this discussion on 2K versus 4K is just noise in my opinion, and not worth the bandwidth.

 

[slipperybidness]

I think calling you a troll is a bit strong, but you are getting in line for the acronym.

I will state for the record that I don't think there are TVs around at the moment that can deliver the overall quality of the plasma TVs we used to have.

Resolution is just one aspect and spec. To benefit from 4K you need a viewing distance too close for good audio. In my system they audio is designed to give a realistic 3D impression of the space. The closest optimal listening distance is 12 ft. So 12 ft and further delivers optimal sound. Therefore I do not reed a 4 K TV.

What I do want is really realistic colors wide viewing angle and depth of image with good blacks. For me plasma screens deliver. I'm yet to see a screen using other technology that would satisfy me the way my three Plasma screens do.

I bought this Fujitsu Plasma Vision screen in January 2006. It was originally in my studio until I replaced it with the very last of the absolute top of the line Panasonic 65" TVs. That screen is now giving excellent service in our secondary viewing room in our Eagan residence.

It still gives an absolutely superb picture.

In the studio I put in the largest and best Plasma screen I could.

I was so pleased with it I bought a midrange Panasonic Plasma for the primary viewing area at Eagan.

There is nothing about the current generation of TVs that would make me want to change my Pre/pros and all the HDMI cables. Don't even talk about the nightmare of connecting everything to the TV and sending the sound back to the pre/pros. After set up the only thing a TV needs is the on/off button. Screens should be the video equivalent of a speaker in a well designed AV system.

Talking of which compared to the realism the audio can provide as its end of AV there is no screen that can come remotely close to that realism as the V part of the equation and I highly doubt it ever will. So in any event the audio gives by far the best return on investment, so all this discussion on 2K versus 4K is just noise in my opinion, and not worth the bandwidth.

I mostly agree here, but everything we are reading now suggests that the HDR is indeed worth the upgrade.

But, I mostly wanted to mention a niche that you have likely overlooked--GAMERS. Gaming can make a good argument for 4K.

 

[TLS Guy]

I mostly agree here, but everything we are reading now suggests that the HDR is indeed worth the upgrade.

But, I mostly wanted to mention a niche that you have likely overlooked--GAMERS. Gaming can make a good argument for 4K.

You could be right about gamers. I think they are generally closer to the screen. However I'm not a gamer. I will not be looking for new screens until mine fail. I really like what I have and I'm not in the least persuaded to change. I don't believe that in the HT environment with the usual home theater viewing distances HDR is worth the upgrade. It is certainly not worth screen, Receiver/pre/pro, cable and peripherals upgrade. If it means using the TV as a switch and using HDMI ARC then it is a definite DOWNGRADE.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There's also the front projection market which is far behind the flat panel market in terms of UHD.

I sit about 15' from a 161" diagonal. It's extremely immersive and enjoyable, but it's one area where 4K and audio can just all meld together to create a top tier experience. But, of course, is meaningless in a discussion of flat panel displays.

 

[Auditor55]

I mostly agree here, but everything we are reading now suggests that the HDR is indeed worth the upgrade.

But, I mostly wanted to mention a niche that you have likely overlooked--GAMERS. Gaming can make a good argument for 4K.

Would you buy a 65 inch 4K set to use for gaming? If you sit up close for a set that size, you might be able to see the increase sharpness from the higher resolution, but you field of vision when playing that game will be highly compromised.