Best 4K HDR TV's for One X, PS4 Pro [2017-2020]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to twist the knife even more, but last night I watched the 4K Blu-ray of John Wick 2. The use of HDR is just immense, really makes my TV shine to the max.

I'm now stupidly fully invested in 4K Bluray and it will hurt to watch anything in SDR, like it hurts to play SDR games after experiencing the great HDR games this year.

This warms my heart. When you said you weren't going to get into UHD BluRays with that set, my first thought was, "But Planet Earth II......". They should make people sign a contract that they will watch this documentary on UHD BluRay within the first week of owning a high-end HDR set.

I have to live vicariously through those with sets with superior HDR performance until I can get my own.
 
This warms my heart. When you said you weren't going to get into UHD BluRays with that set, my first thought was, "But Planet Earth II......". They should make people sign a contract that they will watch this documentary on UHD BluRay within the first week of owning a high-end HDR set.

I have to live vicariously through those with sets with superior HDR performance until I can get my own.
I have PE2 but haven't had the chance to pop it in yet. Apparently it's brain melting, eye popping, soul crushing pretty to look at.
 
4k is not really noticeable on a TV screen tho. Heck, I use performance mode on horizon zero dawn and ffxv and didn't miss the extra sharpness of 4k at all.

It's more noticeable on PC sitting distance.

Anyway, watched an oled screen yesterday and yeah... The color is so much better.

As usual, this is dependent on screen size and viewing distance.
 
As usual, this is dependent on screen size and viewing distance.

The benefit of 4k TV is more of the zero visible pixel "mesh" for me.

So it's running non native is still okay, I still can't see the pixel mesh.

In 1080p TV, I can easily see the pixel mesh :(

But I think that will differ from person to person. Case in point, none of my friends, nor my brother can see the pixel mesh. But I can (although my brain automatically ignored it when playing game, become visible again in something static like a pause menu)
 
with resolution it pays to sit close, that way 4k shows a ton more details, if the source material has them. I'm not saying it's bigger than HDR, but I personally consider HDR (proper) as almost as impactful change in display tech as moving from black and white to color...
 
Last edited:
with resolution it pays to sit close, that way 4k shows a ton more details, if the source material has them. I'm not saying it's bigger than HDR, but I personally consider a HDR (proper) as almost as impactful change in display tech as moving from black and white to color...
the key is whether the source material has them.
If your source material is not made for 4K (ie game assets), then you're just looking at better aliasing imo. Once you get source material for 4K, the level of detail becomes quantifiable, and overall better.

There might be debates about it 'now', but when next gen rolls by where 4K is the base resolution people will see a significant spike in graphical quality when 4K assets become the standard.
 
the key is whether the source material has them.
If your source material is not made for 4K (ie game assets), then you're just looking at better aliasing imo. Once you get source material for 4K, the level of detail becomes quantifiable, and overall better.

Well I mostly agree, but even a game like Shadows of Mordor in 4K mode on the PS4 Pro looks quite a bit better than in 1080P mode. With Witcher 3 on PC I did quite a bit of testing with various resolution and I could see a clear difference in 4K vs 1440P in many scenes, especially if there were a lot of trees close together at medium to far away distances. Even at 1440P the individual branches would blur out quite bad, but at 4k they were clear. On PC I was sitting so close to the screen though that 1080P looked quite bad and 720p was comedy worthy. Right now I have a 55" TV and I sit about 5 feet or 1.5m away from it. From this distance 1080P still looks pretty good, but 4K is depending on the material better or a lot better. 65" from this distance would be sweet.
 
I think there's definitely room for improvement on 1080p. 4k may be overkill for some viewing distances with televisions. On a desktop with a monitor it's probably more appreciable.

I'm actually considering an HDR monitor upgrade for whatever my next console/pc turns out to be. Samsung is pushing 1440p HDR with high refresh on their quantum dot displays. If they get the peak brightness close to 1000nits in 2018, that may be preferable to a tv for me. Their monitor pricing for these new gaming monitors is actually not too bad in Canada. About five to ten times cheaper than the oled HDR tvs I keep drooling over.

I think I may actually prefer a really nice 1440p monitor (that's affordable) to a cheaper 4k HDR tv that's affordable to me. The cheaper tvs will undoubtedly come with more compromises than a monitor in my price range.
 
Well I mostly agree, but even a game like Shadows of Mordor in 4K mode on the PS4 Pro looks quite a bit better than in 1080P mode. With Witcher 3 on PC I did quite a bit of testing with various resolution and I could see a clear difference in 4K vs 1440P in many scenes, especially if there were a lot of trees close together at medium to far away distances. Even at 1440P the individual branches would blur out quite bad, but at 4k they were clear. On PC I was sitting so close to the screen though that 1080P looked quite bad and 720p was comedy worthy. Right now I have a 55" TV and I sit about 5 feet or 1.5m away from it. From this distance 1080P still looks pretty good, but 4K is depending on the material better or a lot better. 65" from this distance would be sweet.

This shit is all bonkers. In terms of field of view recommendations, 55" at 5.5 feet is pretty much ideal. But in terms of resolution you are sitting too close. At 55" and 1080p you should be 7 feet away for optimal viewing.

Buying a 65" 4k means moving up about a foot for optimal viewing based on resolution and tv size but about 2.5 feet too close based on just TV size and FOV recommendations.

So when you get that 65" 4K TV you going to have to decide whether to move up a foot or back a foot depending on how you prioritize resolution versus FOV. Or you can keep the same distance and exist in an unoptimal distance for either factor.

LOL
 
Last edited:
I think there's definitely room for improvement on 1080p. 4k may be overkill for some viewing distances with televisions. On a desktop with a monitor it's probably more appreciable.

I'm actually considering an HDR monitor upgrade for whatever my next console/pc turns out to be. Samsung is pushing 1440p HDR with high refresh on their quantum dot displays. If they get the peak brightness close to 1000nits in 2018, that may be preferable to a tv for me. Their monitor pricing for these new gaming monitors is actually not too bad in Canada. About five to ten times cheaper than the oled HDR tvs I keep drooling over.

I think I may actually prefer a really nice 1440p monitor (that's affordable) to a cheaper 4k HDR tv that's affordable to me. The cheaper tvs will undoubtedly come with more compromises than a monitor in my price range.

That's exactly what I'm trending to for my console set up as well. I play mostly on my monitor and watch streams, youtube and movies on my TV.
 
This shit is all bonkers. In terms of field of view recommendations, 55" at 5.5 feet is pretty much ideal. But in terms of resolution you are sitting too close. At 55" and 1080p you should be 7 feet away for optimal viewing.

Buying a 65" 4k means moving up about a foot for optimal viewing based on resolution and tv size but about 2.5 feet too close based on just TV size and FOV recommendations.

So when you get that 65" 4K TV you going to have to decide whether to move up a foot or back a foot depending on how you prioritize resolution versus FOV. Or you can keep the same distance and exist in an unoptimal distance for either factor.

LOL

What are those recommendations based on? I'd probably optimize field of view over anything else. I don't want to have to look around on the screen, but I also don't want it to be too far away and look too small. You want that sweet spot in your vision. Are those distances panel to eye?
 
I sit really damn close to my 65". It's not great for FOV, (radar etc) but you get the big screen experience. I think it's great, and will be appreciably better with 4K
 
This shit is all bonkers. In terms of field of view recommendations, 55" at 5.5 feet is pretty much ideal. But in terms of resolution you are sitting too close. At 55" and 1080p you should be 7 feet away for optimal viewing.

Buying a 65" 4k means moving up about a foot for optimal viewing based on resolution and tv size but about 2.5 feet too close based on just TV size and FOV recommendations.

So when you get that 65" 4K TV you going to have to decide whether to move up a foot or back a foot depending on how you prioritize resolution versus FOV. Or you can keep the same distance and exist in an unoptimal distance for either factor.

LOL

My 55" is 4K... :)

As far as FOV, it could definitely be quite a bit bigger for me and hey VR has pretty big FOV ;)

I previously had a curved 40" 4K screen for PC-monitor and had quite a bit larger FOV than I currently have.
 
What are those recommendations based on? I'd probably optimize field of view over anything else. I don't want to have to look around on the screen, but I also don't want it to be too far away and look too small. You want that sweet spot in your vision. Are those distances panel to eye?

Go to rtings.com

SMPTE recommends a minimum of 30° FOV and THX recommends a 40° FOV for a cinema experience in a home theater environment. The last row of movie theaters are normally around 36°.

There is a resolution vs distance chart that's been posted here from time to time (commonly found around the internet), shaded in blue, green, purple and red. The shaded part is where you see the benefits of a resolution, but the minimal distance is the optimal distance to get the full benefits. Below those distances is where people can start resolving individual pixels or other issues.
 
Last edited:
My 55" is 4K... :)

As far as FOV, it could definitely be quite a bit bigger for me and hey VR has pretty big FOV ;)

I previously had a curved 40" 4K screen for PC-monitor and had quite a bit larger FOV than I currently have.

You should be ashamed of yourself for forcing your eyes to experience such unoptimal conditions.

LOL.

I'm only at 30° FOV by happenstance. I have others factors at play like not wanting to leave a 2-3 foot unusable gap between the back of my couch and the wall or blocking a main window. I just use a chair when I want to go really immersive.

Even at 8.5 feet on a 65"set, 4K and HDR is still amazing.
 
Not to twist the knife even more, but last night I watched the 4K Blu-ray of John Wick 2. The use of HDR is just immense, really makes my TV shine to the max.

I'm now stupidly fully invested in 4K Bluray and it will hurt to watch anything in SDR, like it hurts to play SDR games after experiencing the great HDR games this year.
I know that feel brother:), zd9 deserves better. I'd rather devs to nail down hdr first then worry about 4K next.
 
Go to rtings.com

SMPTE recommends a minimum of 30° FOV and THX recommends a 40° FOV for a cinema experience in a home theater environment. The last row of movie theaters are normally around 36°.

There is a resolution vs distance chart that's been posted here from time to time (commonly found around the internet), shaded in blue, green, purple and red. The shaded part is where you see the benefits of a resolution, but the minimal distance is the optimal distance to get the full benefits. Below those distances is where people can start resolving individual pixels or other issues.

I was just looking at that page on rtings and it looks like for optimal viewing at my 7' viewing distance @ 4k I'm looking at 65" ideally (which will be below but close to the 40° "cinema" recommendation). I was thinking 65 or 70" anyway, so that works out well. Still might grab that 55" TCL for a more immediate upgrade, though, once it's more readily available. Won't be going big on that one since it's going to be replaced eventually.
 
I didn't realize you could turn HDR off in Xbox settings. So, I could compare HDR vs non HDR on the same TV.

Pretty massive difference to say the least. Definitely cant agree with some on GAF saying the difference is overrated or barely there, etc.

ALTHOUGH I could easily see HDR (on my set anyway) being described as "overstaturated" or "cartoony". Again far from videophile, so I cant say what is supposed to be oversaturated and what not. I know reviews would always complain Samsung phone displays were oversaturated...

Also I corrected the Forza slider thing, the issue was I wasn't darkening the 1 box on the 1st slider per instruction. Once I did that I could easily make the logo disappear on the brightness box. i imagine this little mini calibration helped on that game.

I'd be pretty dang happy with this TV as a $349 stopgap if I could get my game mode concerns (which are hard to explain, but basically I'm not convinced it's fully active, as on this TV you have to turn game mode on then in HDr content it locks HDR mode, and you just have to believe it's in game mode then I guess) sorted. It could 1000% be placebo or a million other factors, but I wasn't doing particularly well in Destiny multiplayer on this set.

For $349 this TV is really gorgeous. Seems quite brighter than my old set too, no matter how it ranks in comparison to other HDR sets.

Oh but, off angle viewing indeed seems quite poor per reviews. I think even worse than I remember on my old TV. Not a huge concern, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top