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

[Nesh]

I didn't say 8K has no visible benefit. I said games won't target them. There isn't going to be the power to drive 8K displays in the next-gen consoles. In OXB era, 720p was a standard coming in but few games targeted it though it was possible. In XB360 era, 1080p was a standard coming in but few games targeted it. In XB1 era, 4K is a standard coming in and games don't target it except through the introduction of the mid-gen consoles. Next gen, 8K will be a standard coming in. Whether people adopt it en mass or not is yet to be seen, but even if they do and 8K ends up everywhere, the consoles will be outputting 4K graphics just like the previous generations which targeted below-the-latest display res.

Edit: If your point was more about people saying they couldn't see the difference and so these improved resolutions weren't needed, screen sizes have increased thus making the differences more apparent.

So back at a generation's start, saying, "the new super high res looks no different," has more validity because the screen sizes mean the perceptible differences are minimal. By the end of the generation, the screens have doubled in size and the new resolution looks substantially better. Though even then, the science of vision and large screens mean we are definitely hitting limits regards res and screen size unless society goes with wall-sized displays. 4K is good for a 60 degree FOV which is notably more than a cinema screen from anything but the front-most seats. The maximum resolution will be determined by what FOV people want, and if people want their periphery filled up.

The big question is how much big is too big to fit in a home in order to enjoy 8K properly?
80inches is at the very very big to too big territory for most homes
60-65inches seems to be the ideal sweet spot of big size for most households.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The big question is how much big is too big to fit in a home in order to enjoy 8K properly?
80inches is at the very very big to too big territory for most homes
60-65inches seems to be the ideal sweet spot of big size for most households.

When I got my first 52" TV around 2000-2002, it blew everyone's minds when they saw it. Now pretty much nobody thinks that is more than average over here. 28" used to be big. If you told 60-65" to be the sweet spot back then, everybody would have looked at you like you were some crazy person. Point is "normal" changes over time and when you can put very thin display on the wall, there is space in most homes. I'm not saying 80" will be common place 2 years from now, but the sizes are creeping up every year.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We may also end up with super-duper projector tech, filling a wall when in use and invisiable when not, in which case people wouldn't be opposed based on room aesthetics. Then it'd be a case of whether they like the physical effort of having to look back and forth across the screen to see what's going on based on seating distance. THX recommends a 40 degree FOV - seems unlikely people will want to go full-on immersive FOVs, but people are hard to predict. But it's all moot. 8K won't be a gaming resolution save perhaps some cool indie concepts. The best TV for next-gen won't be decided by resolution but by features and display quality.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

LG OLED Panel improvements: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...dium=email&utm_campaign=20190108#170a8f34432d

Subpixel changes: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-511.html#post57384632



OLEDs are getting cheap. I saw 65'' B8 for ca. $1700.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...n-2-processor-hdmi-2-1-tvs-ces-2019-a-11.html

Panasonic OLED does not have HDMI 2.1 but Dolby Vision and HDR10+:

Unfortunately not surprised. HDR 10+ is a Samsung standard so I expect LG not to implement it for as long as they can. Though I suppose it doesn't really need new hardware so who knows it might be added at some point through a software update (probably wishful thinking).

I'm glad I didn't buy a c8 this year. Might go for the 55 inch c9 instead. With HDMI 2.1 it looks future proof. Hopefully this time there won't be the 800 euro on top of the European price because japan...

My old 42" LG is starting to feel kinda small in my new living room.

 

[mpg1]

I think 8K will eventually become common because the average screen size will slowly creep up. I wouldn't be surprised if 80"-100" TV's become the norm over the next 5-10 years.

 

[Jupiter]

The 2010 OLEDs are even using another subpixel structure than late last years Phillips. This menas that LG changed the subpixel structure 3 times in 12 months: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-televiseur/ces-2019-encore-nouvelle-dalle-pour-televiseurs-oled-n82391.html&sandbox=1

SONY OLED does not have HDMI 2.1 as well.

Then the LG OLED is the way to go from an OLED perspective. Motion performance will also be greatly improved with 120Hz-BFI and a response time (MRPT) of only 3.5ms instead of 6ms (not sure of this works with HDMI 2.0).

 

[London Geezer]

Don’t get too comfortable with ‘cheap’ OLEDs. By the time they’re actually cheap, MicroLED will be the new thing to have, at newly refreshed top end prices.

 

[Malo]

A convenient feature for some and old news for folks running modern media centre/HTPC software where this has been mostly standard for 2-3 years.

Or something we've had the ability to do with Chromecast devices for many years. Now that Apple is getting into it more, it becomes new and innovative of course. A new round of TV ads with gender-vague millenials coming.

 

[Jupiter]

Don’t get too comfortable with ‘cheap’ OLEDs. By the time they’re actually cheap, MicroLED will be the new thing to have, at newly refreshed top end prices.

The problem with LEDs is that 8k will become more widespread in 2020. For LEDs it is hard to make them in small sizes and a lower resolution is a point that simply doesn't look good on paper. Currently they only have shown a handcrafted UHD LED in 75''. It could still take until 2025 before LEDs will be mass produced for consumers (what they showed on CES was all meant for billboards and so on). OLEDs are already available for 1200€ and OLED prices will continue to fall massively. LEDs have to catch up first before they can displace OLEDs. This year LG will bring a 8k 88'' OLED into the market (they have shown a 65'' 8k behind closed dores). Next year the OLEDs from SONY and Panasonic will follow. Maybe LG will create top emission displays in 2020 and then OLEDs will get much brighter, more efficient and 65'' OLEDs could get 8k as a series. 8k OLEDs could already be relatively widely available in 2020 while LEDs first have get to something like 75'' 4k in mass production.

I don't see OLEDs being replaced by LEDs soon. LEDs will certainly be very good but at the moment I would not expect to be able to buy it for a four-digit amount it in the near future.

EDIT:

Examples that prices will continue to fall.

LG introducing MMG (which will bring 8.5G manufacturing of 65" and 75/77" WOLED panels down to 10.5G-esque levels).

LG will introduce 48" WOLED panels (3 out of the extra space), finally bringing WOLED further down-market.

MMG will reduce 8.5G 65" and 75/77" WOLED panel costs by ~33%.

LG will be converting another LCD line to 8.5G WOLED production.

Accordingly, we are preparing for the OLED panel supply issue ahead of time. Kwon said, "The OLED production volume will increase significantly in the second half of the year, and if LG Display starts 10.5G in the second quarter of 2021, the production will increase rapidly for the second consecutive year. "We are going to increase the weight of 8K to 88 inches, and we are considering a large rollerblad as an alternative," he said.'

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ogy-advancements-thread-513.html#post57406602

At some point 77'' will be the new 65''. Last year I already saw the C8 77'' for 4444€.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I do think there will be a limit to the popularity of larger tv's though. Even if they can be produced cheap enough. once you get much above 55 ~ 65", it becomes very hard to fit in your average European/Japanese living room.

 

[AzBat]

Good thing they're still making them for us high on the hog Mericans with football-sized living rooms.

Tommy McClain

 

[mpg1]

I do think there will be a limit to the popularity of larger tv's though. Even if they can be produced cheap enough. once you get much above 55 ~ 65", it becomes very hard to fit in your average European/Japanese living room.

They have a solution for that:

Either way I could see 75"+ become the norm for TV's in North America...

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between 4k with and without chroma sub-sampling vs 8k. Impressions are saying you can see the difference between 8k and 4k, especially if you move close, but I wonder if the differences between chroma sub-sampling on/off would be noticeable up close as well.

Edit:
The reason I mention this, for people that don't know how chroma sub-sampling works:
4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling, which is how video is presented, has full resolution for luminance, but for chroma (colour) it only has 1/4 of full resolution. You can think of 4k video as 4k luminance + 1080p colour. The same is true for 8k video. 8k luminance and 4k colour.

The reason it's done is basically to make the video sizes smaller, and because you have luminance per pixel, the loss of colour information is not particularly noticeable. The thing is, if we're going to compare image quality by sitting very close to large screens, then is chroma sub-sampling noticeable? I imagine it's expected that you're sitting at a "standard" distance. I'd rather not replace a perfectly good piece of hardware when it's capable of displaying more colour information than you're giving it. At least I'd want to see the comparison first.

UHD discs and streaming are all 4:2:0 as far as I know. Once there's an 8k video source, watching it downsampled on a 4k tv will essentially be 4:4:4. You could compare the 8k source on a 4k tv to a 4k source on a 4k tv to see the difference, and then compare it to the 8k source on the 8k tv.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The loss of colour info was very, very obvious in Snooker on SDTV (which was 4:0:0?)! Huge amounts of red bleed. Thing is, for high resolutions, you don't notice the difference by and large same as you don't notice mild jpeg-type artefacts. It was found that the eye was more sensitive to brightness than colour which is why more bandwidth was afforded to brightness information. 8K 4:2:0 is going to have 4x the brightness info than 4K 4:4:4 so should look notably sharper. 4K 4:4:4 may look a bit better than 8K 4:2:0 but it'd go against Science to have 4K look as sharp as 8K by increasing colour fidelity.

 

[Scott_Arm]

@Shifty Geezer yah, could be. I'm just curious. Seems crazy to be pushing 8k tv when tv signals can still be 720p and 4k streams are relatively low bitrate compared to uhd discs. I feel like 4k still has a lot of headroom for games and movies. But maybe the 8k luminance data is a super easy win for movies.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

They have a solution for that:

Either way I could see 75"+ become the norm for TV's in North America...

I want a computer desk with a display that rolls out of the desk like that.

Regards,
SB

 

[vjPiedPiper]

Are there no 4:2:2 UHD discs? is is part of the standard?
I know that most of the broadcast and production industry work in v210, which is essentially 10 bit YUV 4:2:2, and commonly regarded as equal to 8-bit RGB 4:4:4.

are UHD HDR discs, 10bit 4:2:0? i seem to recall that dolby vision requires 10 bit, but i might be wrong?

 

[mrcorbo]

Are there no 4:2:2 UHD discs? is is part of the standard?
I know that most of the broadcast and production industry work in v210, which is essentially 10 bit YUV 4:2:2, and commonly regarded as equal to 8-bit RGB 4:4:4.

are UHD HDR discs, 10bit 4:2:0? i seem to recall that dolby vision requires 10 bit, but i might be wrong?

They are 10-bit 4:2:0, yes.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

They have a solution for that:

Either way I could see 75"+ become the norm for TV's in North America...

That isn't a solution as you still need enough space to fit that giant box and the TV. So if you can fit that in your room, you can fit a normal TV as well. The only difference is aesthetically you're not having a giant black rectangle permanently in view.

 

[Entropy]

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between 4k with and without chroma sub-sampling vs 8k. Impressions are saying you can see the difference between 8k and 4k, especially if you move close, but I wonder if the differences between chroma sub-sampling on/off would be noticeable up close as well.

Edit:
The reason I mention this, for people that don't know how chroma sub-sampling works:
4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling, which is how video is presented, has full resolution for luminance, but for chroma (colour) it only has 1/4 of full resolution. You can think of 4k video as 4k luminance + 1080p colour. The same is true for 8k video. 8k luminance and 4k colour.

The reason it's done is basically to make the video sizes smaller, and because you have luminance per pixel, the loss of colour information is not particularly noticeable. The thing is, if we're going to compare image quality by sitting very close to large screens, then is chroma sub-sampling noticeable? I imagine it's expected that you're sitting at a "standard" distance. I'd rather not replace a perfectly good piece of hardware when it's capable of displaying more colour information than you're giving it. At least I'd want to see the comparison first.

UHD discs and streaming are all 4:2:0 as far as I know. Once there's an 8k video source, watching it downsampled on a 4k tv will essentially be 4:4:4. You could compare the 8k source on a 4k tv to a 4k source on a 4k tv to see the difference, and then compare it to the 8k source on the 8k tv.

What may not be obvious to all readers here is that typically the camera source has lower chroma information to start out with due to Bayer colour filtering. A nice accessible piece on the subject faeturing Graeme Nattress from RED is here. While he obviously represents RED, I liked his comments in general. And observations on low-pass filtering/aliasing in particular. Having high resolution original material is a Good Thing.