Which 4K TV?

count.d posted:
Ravenswood10 posted:

well worth having it calibrated - although there are those who will say it's a waste of time. All in the eye of the beholder I say! Grayscale did mine as they did my Panasonic VT Plasma - incredible results and much better than playing around with those set-up discs.

 

 

It's not a case of some people saying it's a waste of time due to the picture being in the eye of the beholder, it's the fact that some people possess the skill to calibrate it without outside debatable advice. From my perspective, I've looked at 10's, 100's or 1,000's of photography images a day, for 30 years. They are scrutinised for contrast, colour balance, etc.. and my eyes have been subconsciously trained to see the levels. This can be a handicap, as I'm not really 100% happy with any of the tv offerings. This is clearly not limited to me as a photographer, as many of my clients choose and/or comment on images in the same way as I feel without my opinion and there does tend to be a pattern with which clients I respect. As I've already said earlier, I've seen many professionally calibrated tvs and they look rubbish, not due to the tv limitations, but the settings. I've also read so much rubbish on the net.  The LG factory settings ISF Expert (Dark Room) are very good and only need a few tweaks on each input to optimise the picture. The usual gimmicky settings are nearly all switched off.

When your professional calibrater has done their job, take a look at various films, BBC news, ITV News, etc.... and every broadcast has it's own characteristic. Watch a quiz show and they're invariably ridiculously oversaturated and warm.  If someone decides on professional calibration, enjoy the tv and hopefully enjoy the calibration, but don't be smug.

Anyway, the above paragraphs won't change anyone.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you so we'd perhaps best leave it there! You're obviously somewhat of an expert and I seem to be spouting total rubbish and no matter what I say you will hold the same views. That said I've had several sets calibrated and others have commented on the quality of the picture so there must be something right. I don't watch quiz shows so can't comment there. Perhaps you've experienced poor calibration service in the past which is contrary to my experience. Three hours well invested in my experience and I'd do it again in a flash with any future set.

I am surprised there is no real specifics of 4K TVs discussed.. a bit like Naim watts, it's not all about size and phosphour saturation (Quantum Dot, Trilumunous Display etc) . Certainly for me the key things to look for are:

  • Full HDR dynamic range
  • Full HDR DCI-P3 Wide Colour Gamut support
  • 10bit or better panel (surprisingly many 4K TVs are still using 8 bit panels)
  • 10 bit or better colour processing.. supporting Dolby Vision HDR
  • High performance/effective  upsampling DSP for 8 bit SDR material... i.e. most broadcast current HD (look for colour banding in low bit rate video and edge of gamut colours in high bit rate video)
  • Check display still looks natural and not washed out when not relying on artificially saturated  colours in WCG HDR.

For me I am holding off until the new 2017 models arrive and readily available which should better address the above compared to 2016. The industry seems to be moving from size matters to quality matters .. should be interesting and I will be finally able to retire my rather power hungry calibrated 8 bit SDR plasma TV which still holds its own albeit with its reduced SDR colour gamut.

The usual misguided forum talk.

a) Iang, I wasn't referring to you. My 'smug' comment was clearly aimed at Ravenswood's opinion that unless someone has their tv professionally calibrated, they're missing out and they don't know it.

b) Ravenswood, whether you watch quiz shows is irrelevant and points like that make me wonder. I stated adjustments to expert dark rook are needed and yes for the better when I'm doing them. "Perhaps you've experienced poor calibration service" - please read my post again.  "I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you so we'd perhaps best leave it there" - Not only do you then do you then go on to write a paragraph, you write another post. 

Differing opinions are what makes forums interesting, but not if people aren't going to take the time to read or understand posts.

IanG posted:

After two faulty Sony's, I decided to try the LG OLED instead and paid the price difference. It wasn't a free upgrade if that is what you're asking Don ?

As I understand, the main difference between the Oppo 203 and 205 will be in the DAC/sound processing capabilities not picture processing. If you plan to use the full music capabilities as a universal player then the 205 may be the one to go for. If your main usage will just be watching films, the 203 is probably adequate.

That said, my understanding may be wrong...

 

Hi Ian,

On re-reading, it looks like my question was convoluted...........apologies !

I was simply asking which model of 65" LG OLED you bought. (I presume there is more than one model, but I'm unsure even on that point)

Cheers

Don

Any views on curved vs flat.. any benefits or experiences  from improved sound reflections with a curved panel.. important if music room and video room are the same ..

I think QLED and similar coming out this year should finally be able to match my aging Plasma for picture subtlety and emotion..

 

I bought a new TV in December.  An interesting & surprisingly easy experience.  Curved screen seems to be last years gimmick.  I looked at one & really could not see what was so special &  much prefered flat.  I really don't see what OLED has thats different from other backlit or edge LED.  I spend  a number of hours in the big stores comparing the massed ranks of screens,  thankfully the biggest store had them lined up in screen size & the unusually cooperative salesman put our top three together for making the final choice,  OLED was not the winner.  The picture quality with the latest Ultra HD screens is stunning & its really hard to choose between different brands.   We don't want 'big' room dominating TV as we don't spend a lot of time with A/V entertainment.   In use its delivered all we expected & more based on the showroom experience. Picture is superb no matter if SD or HD signal.  BRP is excellent, its upscaling performance is so much better than the old TV & even looks good from low number DVD,  Sound is not good but is OK for TV watching - optical feed to Naim gives excellent results when serious listening is required.  The only disappointment is Android TV,  I've tried wifi & ethernet & that made little difference,  its slow & clunky.   I might try it switched off to see what it does (or doesn't) without it.  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Indeed, but large flat screens can be a curse for sound reflections, so interested on feedback on curved, or perhaps makes no difference.. I guess most with large TV screen panels aren't concerned about such things.. but perhaps a  few here are ?

Thanks

Like Mike, after some intense reviewing we didn't go for an OLED either. Our Samsung's got a curved screen, the advantage of which is lost on us, probably because we sit a fair way back from the TV. I wouldn't have bothered with the curved thing but that model only came with it. I've not noticed any negative or positive effects on the sound.

Tony, Mike thanks. Yes Samsung's QLED comes on the market next weekend and it will be interesting. We also don't want a dominating  ugly TV panel on the wall or elsewhere, so we will probably max out on 49 inches which is probably the minimum to appreciate HDR / UHD I think.. and I think that will be quite dominant enough... From what I see the new LED phosphor tech is closest to plasma colour and subtlety performance and leaves the LCDs and their variants way behind.. which has meant I have been holding onto my Pany Plasma until now

Simon

Ok, much researching later if anyone is interested a new LG E6 55" flat screen TV arriving this week. I will almost certainly then pay for calibration like I did for my old plasma panel. I went OLED as it matched the gamuts I wanted.. important for me.. allows effective calibration, reasonably good dynamic range and good off axis viewing... also have descent sound bar built in.. and seems to have good firmware update support... the world of HDR shows there is a variant of colour profiles being used or about to be used and if your TV doesn't support them then  the picture will look subtly off for certain content media suppliers / channels... it's like the early days of MPEG video all over again....

Totally agree with @Ravenswood10 about the benefits of calibration ... being a part time photographer I have long appreciated the benefits of calibrated work flow. It's a bit like having accurate speakers in the audio mastering room.
Ok for entertainment AV TVs the need is different, but as the gamuts used with HDR start to widen then the variation on the edge of the gamut profile can introduce greater errors. Smaller gamuts such as the web's sRGB and HDTV's  Rec 709 are less prone to errors as they are deliberately constrained, but as you widen them on equipment that support wider profiles then manufacturing variances come into play. Yes you can wind down the colour detail to mitigate, but if you wind up then there are real benefits to saturated hues and detail,  in highlights and low lights..  obviously this is dependent on source content and degrees of compression and encoding.

Wise choice Simon, although I prefer the minimalist look of my B6 on the wall.

Probably the single biggest benefit of the oled I've experienced since owning it, is watching films, etc in total darkness. The pure black areas of scenes obviously don't emit any light and this leads to a darker ambience in the room, which in itself improves the picture and the atmosphere. Less extraneous light glaring into the eyes and room allows one to see more detail in the picture. This is not one of those measurable sales stats, but real life use and shows how comparing tvs in shops is next to useless.

Samsung are desperately screaming out some lame comparisons to oled, but they're going the emissive technology way in the future. They just can't do it now.

On the subject of colour gamut, there will be endless more important aspects of your tv to check when it arrives. The good news is that LG seem to have achieved a superb level of quality control. The only 'fault', if I could call it that, on mine, is that the picture is very subtly lighter in the levels just above black at the edges of the screen. This is very common in the LG oleds and so nothing not worry about in 2017. Maybe they'll improve this in the future, but there again maybe the future tvs will have less quality control or they'll suffer from something else, etc....

I don't recall seeing any negative comments regarding calibration, just who's doing it and are they any good? Funny how people who use monitors for images as a profession, don't call in the local 'calibrater'. No, they buy calibration software and do it themselves.

Simon, I think you made a good decision choosing your OLED screen... I got my Tv a few weeks ago and have been very happy with the quality of the picture... I did consider one of the new Samsung quantum dot TVs but decided against for the following reasons

* apart from the top of the range model which is a full array panel and not available in the smaller sizes and is very expensive, the other models lower in the range have the backlighting from the bottom which will leads to a halo effect and will mean that the black bars top and bottom when watching films will never be black but a dark grey. The curved model has side backlighting.. but will still not give real blacks and the viewing angle is further reduced.

* no Dolby Vision support

* Samsung promote the better brightness for HDR however I find the the OLED tv gives sufficient brightness... in some cases too much... Not don't really want an even brighter image

However one really good feature of the new Samsung TVs is that all the connections is on a separate external box that can be put out of sight... this is a great feature that other vendors should copy... additionally Samsung TVs handle motion better than LG TVs.

 

Still enjoying my LG OLED. Calibration seems to have made some nice improvements.

However I am having what seems to be some irritating hand shake issues. I'm not sure if it's the TV, Oppo/Sky Q box or my HDMI cables. I need to use quite long cables (5m) due to the location of my equipment. I've currently been using Atlas Equator cables but I'm fairly confident these are the source of the problem.

Has anyone experienced similar problems or can recommend alternative HDMI's to try ?

The Atlas cables are quite an expensive active cable and I was wondering if they are a bit too clever for there own good and if something simpler/cheaper may in this instance be more effective.

Another issue I have had with the Atlas cables is that on my Oppo the on screen menu was only visible when the "Deep colour" HDMI setting on the TV was turned off. With the setting turned on, 4K HDR discs played but the on screen menu didn't come on screen. This happened on both the Sony and LG TV's I've tried. I know there have been some issues with Oppo 203 so I just put it down to a quirk of the machine.

Someone lent me a couple of cheap and cheerful 5m HDMI's yesterday so I could try something else and now the Oppo on screen menu is visible in both modes !

Early days, but since getting the cheap cables yesterday, I've watched around 5 hours Sky Q, one episode of Planet Earth II and Fantastic Beasts etc on 4K HDR blu ray with no issues. If everything continues to run ok with these cables over the next week or so I think I'll stick with them. I'm reluctant to keep parting with hard earned cash on expensive cables if I can't get any certainty they'll work.

I also noticed that the Sky Q box runs hot, however most of my issues were on start on when everything is cold.

Strange business this !

 

A slight digression - after a brief flirtation with Freesat, we returned to Sky after they made us a really good offer for a year's subsrcription (then we'll have to play the "I'm going to cancel" game again...). I'm quite tempted by the Sky Q box but looking at the various forums it does seem to suffer some reliability issues. I wonder what you folks' experiences are?

Sky Q has worked flawlessly for me. We have a main box with a wired connection and a mini box connected wirelessly. The installer had to put a wifi booster in.

It needs the occasion power cycle but what doesn't these days.

The general impression from the family was that picture and sound quality was improved over the previous box too.

Its a great platform and I'd certainly recommend it.

I came back to Sky via the LG deal and may stay with it at the end of the freebie period - although as they say, nothing is ever free! The main and mini boxes work perfectly and like some others on the forum I run the shooting match as Ethernet rather than wireless. The only issue is that the main box can run hot so I have mine on an open shelf with three isolation cones underneath.I use the latest Chord HDMI cables elsewhere but had to swop to an Audioquest Graphite as the electronics in the Chord HDMI plug didn't appreciate being gently fried by the Q box. Fine when warming up but the signal would die when the Q box was up to cooking temperature. Too much going on in that teeny weeny case methinks.

tonym posted:

A slight digression - after a brief flirtation with Freesat, we returned to Sky after they made us a really good offer for a year's subsrcription (then we'll have to play the "I'm going to cancel" game again...). I'm quite tempted by the Sky Q box but looking at the various forums it does seem to suffer some reliability issues. I wonder what you folks' experiences are?

Hi Tony, Sky Q works ok - there are a few foibles but when isn't there? Best to set up using Ethernet and switch off the wifi and power line adapter modes - you can ask the installer to do - but most seem not to know how to do this - mine included  - so I sorted it after he had gone. With ethernet you will have perfect streaming with out the issues of wifi or God forbid power line adapter mode... and the Sky Q and Mini box will run slightly cooler - and you will get less congestion on your wifi spectrum and digital mains noise for your Naim.

My big issue with Sky Q - which is more about Sky really - is the  really high compression they use on many of the channels such as Sky Cinema  - i found the Sky Ultra really too highly compressed with too many artefacts - so I stick with HD 1080P. The upscaler in the Sky Q and minibox is rather poor - so best use your TV upscaler, however currently there is no way for the Sky Q to switch between HD and Ultra automatically depending on content - so standard HD material can look  soft and artificial if you set the  Sky Q to Ultra - so it is a manual adjustment if and when to watch Ultra - and the Sky Q box does prompt you to change - a bit of a faff - but as the Ultra is rather mediocre as I have said  I don't bother much with it 

IanG posted:

Funny that Tony, I like the fact that you don't own the equipment. Any repair/replacement etc is now at Sky's cost.

I suppose that's fine if you intend to stick with Sky long-term, but unless they give me a good deal at the end of my discount year I might well ditch them again. So the £199 would seem expensive, given my old box performs very well.

I'm not sure I've ever understood the logic of this ownership thing with Sky. I've been with them for years and ever so often get cold-calls from their sub-contractors wanting to sell me 'insurance' to defray repair costs if anything goes wrong.  This is typically about another £15 a month.  The call always starts with a statement that they know my Sky box has 'just gone out of warranty'. I usually ask why I would pay to repair a box I don't own? They give me some phaff about costs also cover labour, call out charges.  The call normally ends when I state that if I had a problem and Sky refused to fix the kit for free I would simply dump them and use Virgin or BT Infinity, both of which are available in my street.  

All that said, when I did have a problem with my Sky box (its HMDI socket failed), Sky sent out an engineer and replaced it with a new upgraded box for free.  So I wouldn't worry, Tony. If you have a problem, while Sky will bluff a bit initially, they know which side their bread is buttered and won't risk losing the customer.   

Sky doesn't own my HD box, I do. It's getting quite elderly but still performs well (OK, I did have to replace its power supply a few years ago), and of course if I decide not to pay for Sky any more it still works fine as a Freesat device.

Just thought I would provide an update.. as a bit of fun I downloaded Monster Inc in 3D from Sky last night and watched it on the E6 .. first time I used this 3D tech, absolutely blooming great fun.. I like how the TV converts into a window where there appears parallax depth and layers like there is real space behind the screen, and occasionally stuff comes in front of the window into the room.... it's a shame 3D is dieing out .. especially as I understand only really now does the consumer hardware do it true justice. The glasses are quite in obtrusive too. But yes I can see why you need a good size screen with high luminance  for it to work well, but I like how the viewing doesn't have to be concentrated, vision away from the screen is normal, just a bit dimmer.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Just thought I would provide an update.. as a bit of fun I downloaded Monster Inc in 3D from Sky last night and watched it on the E6 .. first time I used this 3D tech, absolutely blooming great fun.. I like how the TV converts into a window where there appears parallax depth and layers like there is real space behind the screen, and occasionally stuff comes in front of the window into the room.... it's a shame 3D is dieing out .. especially as I understand only really now does the consumer hardware do it true justice. The glasses are quite in obtrusive too. But yes I can see why you need a good size screen with high luminance  for it to work well, but I like how the viewing doesn't have to be concentrated, vision away from the screen is normal, just a bit dimmer.

I agree. Simon. I bought a Panasonic Viera TX-58DX902 a few months ago to replace a pretty good Samsung LED. Not only is the picture quality stunning, but the 3D content I own, and the 3D films available from Sky are really excellent on this set.

I bought the set specifically for its Ultra HD capability and its extremely natural (to my eyes) colour range, and have been delighted so far with the Ultra HD films I have purchased. My intention was to upgrade from my Sky HD subscription to an Ultra HD subscription from one of the potential providers (Sky, Virgin or BT) with Sky Q Silver being the favourite, albeit at a cost.

However, one of your posts above has thrown a spanner in the works, when you posted"....I found the Sky Ultra really too highly compressed with too many artefacts - so I stick with HD 1080P" and "but as the Ultra is rather mediocre as I have said  I don't bother much with it" . I'd be grateful if you could clarify a few things for me.

I take it that you have the Sky Q Silver box/service, and have compared its Ultra HD capability with that of your Ultra HD Blu-ray player and found it to be significantly less good? Does your comment apply to both Ultra HD movies and Sports (Football) content, and if so are there really any significant advantages to the Sky-Q service over the standard HD service other than larger capacity storage. The new interface was going to be a bit of a worry for me, as a number of reviewers have questioned whether or not it is better than the standard (excellent) HD box/service.

 Are you glad that you upgraded?   

     

×
×
×
×