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

[wco81]

There was a movement with some directors, like 20-30 years ago, to film with higher frame rates.

This was long before digital.

Now would it be easier to do?

Are there enough displays capable of UHD and HDR at 60 Hz? Are theaters capable of displaying at 60 fps?

I think people have pushed back against higher frame rates as not being film-like.

 

[Jupiter]

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...

Samsung fails in the premium segment ($2500). In 2015 they had a market share of 54% and now they land at 11% in the first quarter of 2017. Now its no wonder why Samsung advertises QLED this aggressively. Apparently the premium customer no longer belives the Samsung marketing. Even in the price class of $1500 it does no longer look good for Samsung with a market share of 13%. The SUHD series was a huge flop because it does not meet any premium requirements. Thankfully the customers realized this!

In the global premium TV market, Sony, which was the so-called "over-the-wall" for the Korean TV industry such as Samsung and LG, has been struggling to enter the LCD era and LED era.

In fact, according to global market researcher IHS, one of the criteria to be classified as premium TV in the TV market of more than $1,500, Sony maintained its market share to 13.6% in the first quarter of 2015 and 16.6% in the fourth quarter.

In addition, in 2016, the company kept the second half of the 10% range, including 18.3% in the second quarter and 19.9% in the third quarter, following 17.5% in the first quarter.

On the other hand, LG Electronics' share of LG Electronics grew by 43.8% in the third quarter from 17.6% in the first quarter and 16.6% in the second quarter, from 13.9% in the first quarter of 2015.

During this period, Samsung has risen from 46.2% in the first quarter of 2015 to 55.0% in the second quarter. It has been adjusted to 44.6% in the third quarter and 42.6% in the fourth quarter. In 2016, it reached 39.5% in the first quarter and 39.3% In the third quarter, it rose to 48.2% for a while, but dropped to 20.2% in the fourth quarter.

However, in the first quarter of 2017, Sony's market share surpassed LG with 35.8%, up 39.0%.

Instead, Samsung's share fell to 13.2%.

This trend is similar to the high-end TV market of more than $ 2,500, so Sony's share of the market, which was 14.3% in 2015, jumped to 24.6% in 2015 and soared to 34.4% in the first quarter of this year.

LG, which rose from 21.3 percent in 15 years to 40.8 percent in 16 years, maintained its top spot with a 40.8 percent share in the first quarter.

Instead, Samsung Electronics fell from 54.7% in '15 to 23.4% in '16 and 11.1% in the first quarter.

Sony's first surprise is that it turned its eyes to high-end OLED TVs by replacing its panel supply with LG Display in the TV business, which had been abandoned for some time.

As OLED TV began to set in the market, LG Electronics' share of high-end TVs began to rise, and Sony, which shifted to OLED, increased its share of the high-end TV market and ran first with a market share of over $ 1,500.

Samsung Electronics became one of the hottest companies.

The premium TV market share, which had once climbed to 55%, shrank by LG and Sony, and dropped to the 10% level in the first quarter of this year.

It is noteworthy how much Samsung will block the alliance of OLED TV alliance, which has become stronger due to Sony's power, as a weapon against QLED TV.

https://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=ko&tl=en&u=http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/4799379

 

[BRiT]

There was a movement with some directors, like 20-30 years ago, to film with higher frame rates.

This was long before digital.

Now would it be easier to do?

Are there enough displays capable of UHD and HDR at 60 Hz? Are theaters capable of displaying at 60 fps?

I think people have pushed back against higher frame rates as not being film-like.

It should be easier to do today. I recall some sort of higher Hz filming being done for The Hobbit movies and being displayed at the higher Hz playback at theatres too. I dont know if it was 60 or just 48 or even 72 or 120.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Samsung fails in the premium segment ($2500). In 2015 they had a market share of 54% and now they land at 11% in the first quarter of 2017. Now its no wonder why Samsung advertises QLED this aggressively. Apparently the premium customer no longer belives the Samsung marketing. Even in the price class of $1500 it does no longer look good for Samsung with a market share of 13%. The SUHD series was a huge flop because it does not meet any premium requirements. Thankfully the customers realized this!

Perhaps you meant QLED has been a flop for samsung since SUHD was introduced in 2015... First quarter of a year is probably not overly representative of the market as many models are introduced at CES, but will not be on sale for quite some time. I hope Sony continues to do well though as their current lineup deserves it.

 

[Jupiter]

One can skip the Q-Series of 2017 without a problem. The last good TV Samsung has built was the JS9590 and maybe the KS9590 but this year?

"Instead, Samsung Electronics fell from 54.7% in '15 to 23.4% in '16 and 11.1% in the first quarter.

Sony's first surprise is that it turned its eyes to high-end OLED TVs by replacing its panel supply with LG Display in the TV business, which had been abandoned for some time.

As OLED TV began to set in the market, LG Electronics' share of high-end TVs began to rise, and Sony, which shifted to OLED, increased its share of the high-end TV market and ran first with a market share of over $ 1,500.

Samsung Electronics became one of the hottest companies.

The premium TV market share, which had once climbed to 55%, shrank by LG and Sony, and dropped to the 10% level in the first quarter of this year.

According to the industry, 88-inch QLED TVs are expected to launch ultra-high-definition TVs by August when they are released.

It is noteworthy how much Samsung will block the alliance of OLED TV alliance, which has become stronger due to Sony's power, as a weapon against QLED TV."

HDR TVs are premium TVs and OLED is clearly leading the market share. Samsung was overtaken by LG and also Sony. Samsung's market share is only 11% in the premium segment. Even for TVs at $1500 Samsung has only a world market share of 13.2%.

 

[RobertR1]

QLED that was shown at CES didn't even make it to production. People took pics of the pixel layout and compared CES to production panels when the quality of the displays didn't match up.

The production displays you can buy are barely "QLED" but Samsung's marketing team decided to have a name very close to OLED and bump the price up to make it seem like they are direct competitors.

In reality, the displays are quite poor at any price range because there are better alternatives available. You'd have to make up a pretty unique use case to justify buying one.

You can see their lack of sales in the size of the owners thread on Avsforum as an example. Some even returned theirs for a Z9D.

I'm all for Samsung making a comeback next year but I hope it's on the back of engineering prowess and not marketing spin.

 

[London Geezer]

The reality is that as of today, TVs are quite a bit more capable in a few aspects than the vast majority of cinemas. A good TV today can do 4K with HDR at 60fps. In order to outfit a cinema with these specs, the cost is insane. And cinemas don't really have any way of showing HDR anyway, let alone huger frame rates. Of course you would need to shoot a movie at higher frame rates at full spec, which is also the problem.

I consider it on the same level as 'normal' TV broadcasting. It's far too expensive for broadcaster to start showing 4k HDR content (plus you'd been newer tuners and all the mess that comes with that). So the internet has taken over as you can just stream at any quality your connection can handle.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The reality is that as of today, TVs are quite a bit more capable in a few aspects than the vast majority of cinemas. A good TV today can do 4K with HDR at 60fps. In order to outfit a cinema with these specs, the cost is insane. And cinemas don't really have any way of showing HDR anyway, let alone huger frame rates. Of course you would need to shoot a movie at higher frame rates at full spec, which is also the problem.

I consider it on the same level as 'normal' TV broadcasting. It's far too expensive for broadcaster to start showing 4k HDR content (plus you'd been newer tuners and all the mess that comes with that). So the internet has taken over as you can just stream at any quality your connection can handle.

Pretty sure Dolby Cinema theatres are HDR, but there aren't many of them.

 

[mpg1]

Pretty sure one of the Hobbit movies was higher frame rate..

 

[London Geezer]

Pretty sure Dolby Cinema theatres are HDR, but there aren't many of them.

Dolby Vision cinema? There's one screen at the Dolby offices in London. It's not a cinema. Not sure if there are cinemas that offer Dolby Vision, haven't heard that.

 

[London Geezer]

Pretty sure one of the Hobbit movies was higher frame rate..

That's my point. One trilogy (which everyone complained about), a few years ago, and only playing in high frame rate in a few selected theatres. And nothing ever since.

 

[London Geezer]

Also! 4k HDR at 60fps is in the capabilities and specs of the UHD bluray standard. There's even a movie (Billy Lynn's Walk or whatever it's called) that was released on disc with all of that.
But most other films are still shot at 24fps so nothing we can do about that.

 

[DieH@rd]

I saw the last Hobbit movie in 48fps, and only in few scenes [the villagers arguing after fleeing ruined city] did the movie looked very "un cinematic", and with soap opera feeling. The rest was fine.

 

[RobertR1]

I saw the last Hobbit movie in 48fps, and only in few scenes [the villagers arguing after fleeing ruined city] did the movie looked very "un cinematic", and with soap opera feeling. The rest was fine.

I did not care for the HFR at all. I liked the clarity in the background on panning scenes but the motion of characters was unpleasant.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Dolby Vision cinema? There's one screen at the Dolby offices in London. It's not a cinema. Not sure if there are cinemas that offer Dolby Vision, haven't heard that.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html

Dolby Cinema theatres include Dolby Vision HDR.

 

[Jupiter]

Samsung really needs to hope that QDCF will work next year than otherwise it will look bad for them.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Samsung really needs to hope that QDCF will work next year. Otherwise it looks really bad.

Yep. The demo unit from the announcement made very good impressions. Unfortunately the units that ended up being released fell way short. I think it's because of the color filter. Even if they don't hit the black levels of old, if they can get color accuracy and peak brightness down, I think they can be a very good option.

 

[London Geezer]

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html

Dolby Cinema theatres include Dolby Vision HDR.

Yes. A handful of locations in a handful of US states. Even more niche than Imax.

My point was! Someone complained about UHD discs not being at 60fps 4k HDR. The discs and players can do it.
The reason we don't get the content is that any other way of filming is extremely experimental and when they did try it, most people complained. So we're kinda stuck with 24p movies, shown in 24p cinemas and put in 24p discs.
HDR is a relatively small detail compared to 60fps and its implications.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes. A handful of locations in a handful of US states. Even more niche than Imax.

My point was! Someone complained about UHD discs not being at 60fps 4k HDR. The discs and players can do it.
The reason we don't get the content is that any other way of filming is extremely experimental and when they did try it, most people complained. So we're kinda stuck with 24p movies, shown in 24p cinemas and put in 24p discs.
HDR is a relatively small detail compared to 60fps and its implications.

Pretty sure Dolby Cinema can handle high frame rates as well, but the rollout is definitely not going fast. Pretty much exclusive to metropolitan USA right now. But it shows there's no limit to HDR and frame rate in in a movie theatre experience except for money.

 

[London Geezer]

Pretty sure Dolby Cinema can handle high frame rates as well, but the rollout is definitely not going fast. Pretty much exclusive to metropolitan USA right now. But it shows there's no limit to HDR and frame rate in in a movie theatre experience except for money.

I think the "problem" if we call it that, is that a lot of established directors will never shoot on digital. And most of those that do, want to preserve the "film look and feel", which to them means 24p. I think it's all rubbish, as to me high frame rates make everything better.