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

I absolutely agree.

The only thing better than John Wick is John Wick 2. The only thing that could be better than John Wick 2 is John Wick 3. It's going to be so full of win!

 

I got the streaming 4k HDR version of Kong Skull Island off the Xbox store out of curiosity.

I think whoever shot this movie was a HDR fanatic. The movie costarred the sun and had a ton of highlights serving as extras.

Even in most dark scenes that was either neon lighting or someone had plug a spot light into a lamp somewhere in the scene.

 

I bought an LG 42LH7000 in 2009 and still use it to this day. I will upgrade once OLED gets cheaper and 4K content is widely available.

 

That really annoys me. Somehow MS managed to get a UHD 4K player in the Xbox, and they now allow streaming of 4K HDR movies.
Sony is still stuck with stupid HD movies on their store (in Europe at least), while at the same time not providing a player for those who might want to get the disc versions. I'm waiting for the 4k disc of Kong Island, which I have to play on a separate player. Or I'm stuck with a crap HD streaming version. And they're the ones pushing for 4K HDR TVs adoption.
Madness.

 

A separate UHD HDR 4K bkuray player isnt expensive at all, some are just $229 or lower on special. Some even stream UHD HDR 4K too. Oh, and at least one plays games too. Or maybe you want to get the November 2017 edition.

 

Oh this pleases me greatly, when I watched this in the cinema I just knew the 4k HDR blu ray was gonna be a godsend. Pacific Rim has since delivered me to HDR heaven and I hope this does does the same

 

It's not about the money, it's having a separate box. My Panasonic UHD player is small but it's still yet another box. Just annoying.

 

You will love it. The Pacific Rim 4K bluray is probably the best thing I've played on my TV yet, off top of my head.

 

Did you not have a 4K player at that point? What HDMI version is your head?

 

My head is the best.

 

Mine still kicking as well, I´d love a smaller than 50´OLED*, not happening soon I´m afraid.

 

https://hdguru.com/lg-4k-oled-tv-wins-tv-shoot-for-4th-consecutive-year/

So...LG OLED TV has won the Value Electronics Shootout yet again...this time against some fan favorite Sony TVs like the Z9D and A1E. The Samsung Q9 QLED was also in the competition. The main criteron was, "Which consumer TV comes closest to the broadcast referece, the Sony BVM-X300?" and while the Sony A1E came close, its lack of CMS (Color Management System) ultimately paid its toll and the A1E suffered blue color pushing. The LG came on top on "Bright light/Dim room", "HDR viewing" and "Streaming"

For those of you wondering why LCDs with gobs of brightness did not do well in "Bright Room" criterion, the reason is because those professionals do not jack up brightness and destroy dynamic range in the process. It was the same in 2013 when the top three scorers on 'Daytime viewing' were actually all plasmas. (Panasonic VT60, Panasonic ZT60, Samsung F8500) Scores are actually given for the panel's ability to hold onto its reference dynamic range, which the final generation plasmas and OLEDs are very good at. (The plasmas have anti reflective filters similiar to Motheye filters that Sharp and Samsung QLED LCD TVs use, the LG OLEDs by their design also has very low reflectance, that it has taken the second gen Motheye (Samsung QLED) to equal the LG OLED in reflection as proved in RTings reviews)

I'm also glad the LG's victory in HDR viewing puts "FALDs have best HDR highlight sbecause they have higher light output" argument into rest. I hate vague terms like "Highlight". What kind of highlights are they talking about? Because they come in so many different forms. In case of small patches of highlight, the Samsung QLED actually has no equal among LCDs because their ability to dim and brighten tiny groups of pixels in a way no FALDs like the Sony Z9D can ever muster. (From my viewing, the Z9D and the Samsung KS9800's patches were bigger than the Samsung QLEDs) Does that mean the Samsung QLEDs are better than the Sony Z9D for HDR contents? Hmm...

 

I think you might be a bit confused. The Samsung QLEDs cannot "dim and brighten tiny groups of pixels in a way no FALD can muster". Or that it has no equals among LCDs. Come on. That's just plain wrong. Sorry!

 

It's sharing the top spot along side The Revenant. Man the steady supply of new HDR movies is really showing ZD9's power.

 

Contrary to the final score, many attendants have had different views on the bright room HDR score and most seemed to have leaned towards ZD9 as being the best HDR performer. In dark contrasty scenes Oleds do indeed excel due to the self emissive nature but in bright day time scenes the FALD especially Z9 is vastly better, in fact it's able to deliver highlights like the sun's silhouette that Oleds could ever dream of. This is a known fact that's been well documented by many review sites and the Oled did not just suddenly increased its peak brightness to 2000 nits after this shootout lol.
Also for your Qled's "superior" local dimming as compared to ZD9's. Z9 on the left, middle is the Sony's reference monitor, right is Q9.

 

QLEDs do not have real dimming. They're bloody edge lit! Hello! Let's be real. A Samsung QLED with a full array backlight like the ZD9 would probably have crushed most of the competition. Unfortunately no such thing exists.

 

I've been buying UHD discs and reselling them on eBay (the ones I know I'll only watch once) and in most cases they effectively end up being pretty much free.
Best quality for free? No brainer. I used to buy the digital versions on Amazon but that's a total loss in price and quality.

 

I might have to start selling some of my old blu rays that I hardly watch any more and invest more on 4k from here and out. I always go disc for movies, it's just pure principle for best quality.

 

So far I find UHD Blu Rays disappointing.

24p is too low to allow a sharp and clean movement presentation which already annoys in 1080p. However, in UHD or 8k it is a disaster. A non moving image is sharp with lots of details but as soon as some movement is involved the entire sharpness collapses and the feeling arises that only a fraction of the actual resolution is seen. In my opinion the step from FullHD/60fps to UHD/60fps in Video games is much more impressive than from Blu Ray to UHD Blu Ray.

The filmmakers MUST go with the time. The screen sizes are getting bigger, the resolution always higher while the historical frame rate of 24p no longer fits. This is in contrast to all other developments. Some even think that high frame rates in movies look cheap while I rather find that this is the case with a completly muddy 24p movie picture in motion.

It may take an adaptation period for some individuals. However, if a person is open to it the advantages of a higher frame rate will quickly appreciated. The soap effect occurs only with MCFI because in this case the software has to remove the moving objects in the foreground in order to be able to perform as good an intermediate image calculation as possible.

This is not the case with a native image rate. In the end there are alrady higher framerates in sports shows, talkshows, etc. where the picture looks good.

It is always fascinating to see how sharp native 60fps does look in movement (BFI).

Meanwhile, I also refuse games with historical 30fps. In my opinion they are only playable as walking simulations and 30fps results in an extremly muddy image in motion too.