First, if you're coming in to say "4k is a waste of money, bla bla bla" just don't bother, I will simply ignore you. If you do however have a 1080p tv you would like to suggest as an alternative, I'll listen.

I am going to buy a new television this week.

I did my first round of shopping today and looking at TVs, initially setting out to find a 55" 1080p television for around $1000 - $1500. Having set out on that mission however, I quickly realized that even high end 1080p tvs just don't look as good as the lowest end 4K tvs.

It wasn't the resolution, at a distance the two were indeed indestinguishable, but for the same money the 4K TVs also had higher refresh rates, brighter screens, and better contrast.

Now, that being said.

What are some opinions on some of the "entry level" 4K tvs on the market right now?

I'm leaning toward the Vizio P-Series or the LG UB8200

I have a 4k computer monitor, and I love it. But I have enough horsepower in my rig to fully use it. That is the only way 4k is viable, through a computer that can play games at those resolutions. Save your money for a 4k TV when the content exists

quote:

---

There is no content. This is a waste of money. America must improve its cable/internet infrastructure before we start upgrading. Hell, we aren't even getting full HD from the cable/satellite/internet companies.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY....YET.

---

i know I said I would ignore you if you spouted this nonsense, but I can't.

the lack of content doesn't bother me at all. I cut the cord months ago, and already get all of my content either from Netflix or Amazon Prime (Hulu sucks). I also stream content off of my PC, which is more than capable of driving a 4K tv.

quote:

---

Without naming TVs specifically, I don't believe an adjusted low end 4K TV has better contrast, brighter, etc. over an equivalent priced 1080P. You might think so based on the "showroom" settings, but that is a poor way to evaluate TVs. No mention of color accuracy, black level, etc. Do you actually see "refresh" rate?

Since the OP started his post from a position of arrogance, I'll end mine by saying the OP has no idea how to judge TV quality.

---

maybe it is based on showroom settings, perhaps. But I can't seem to find any expert opinions online to refute it, so all I have to go by is what I see on the showroom floor.

that said, the high end 1080p tvs were noticeably better than the cheaper 1080p tvs, and there were dramatic differences between them.

I can only judge based on why my eyes tell me, and my eyes are very good. And my eyes were telling me that the 4K tvs just looked better, brighter, and richer. Unless the stores were deliberately dialing back the settings on high end 1080p TVs, a move which I can't find any logical sense in, then that is all I have to go by. I will also comment that I noticed the exact same thing at 3 different stores (Best Buy, Frys, TigerDirect) that all had very different lighting conditions and display arrangements.

quote:

---

I have a 4k computer monitor, and I love it. But I have enough horsepower in my rig to fully use it. That is the only way 4k is viable, through a computer that can play games at those resolutions. Save your money for a 4k TV when the content exists

---

I will probably play games from my PC through it, and my PC has more than enough horsepower to fully use it. (i7-4770k and dual GTX 760s, all overclocked)

If I were in the market for a new TV the lack of 4k content wouldn't even register as a negative as long as the technology to provide it in the future is there. A year or so ago when TVs were shipping without HDMI 2.0 I'd say it was a waste but at this point why not?

With out having compared any new sets the price points of 4k doesn't see to add that much of a premium and it is certainly a feature that will be relevant in a few years versus the 3d fad.

Potential poor performance in other factors aside from pixel density are could certainly be a reason not to buy one but to me content is not.

quote:

---

If I were in the market for a new TV the lack of 4k content wouldn't even register as a negative as long as the technology to provide it in the future is there. A year or so ago when TVs were shipping without HDMI 2.0 I'd say it was a waste but at this point why not?

With out having compared any new sets the price points of 4k doesn't see to add that much of a premium and it is certainly a feature that will be relevant in a few years versus the 3d fad.

Potential poor performance in other factors aside from pixel density are could certainly be a reason not to buy one but to me content is not.

---

agreed. It's silly to buy based on old tech. The UHD bluray standard has been finalized and 4K blurays should be hitting the market soon. Unlike 3D, eventually all content will be available in 4K, and it's almost inconceivable that the tv will be at the end of its useful life before we get to that point. Buying a 4K tv 2 years ago would probably have been silly, but at this point it's almost silly to buy a new 1080p TV, which will be outdated long before the 4K tv will be.

My decision to buy a TV right now has nothing at all to do with new technology being available, it's not like I'm throwing out a perfectly good 1080p tv so I can jump on the newest tech. I need a new TV, and I'm going to get one regardless. Even without the other considerations, buying another 1080p tv would saddle me with a TV that will be extremely outdated in just a few years, rather than a TV that is only a little bit outdated.

quote:

---

You really think a 1080p TV will be "extremely outdated" in a few years?

---

when all content is available in 4k and nearly every new television is 4k?

yeah, that would be the very definition of "extremely outdated"

quote:

---

That won't be near the norm in a few years.

---

you base that assumption on what exactly? the transition from SD to HD was nearly instantaneous, by all observations 4K is happening at least as fast.

just today the pricing for Vizio's next line of 4K tvs was leaked, revealing that they will be offering a 40" 4K tv for $500 before the summer.

Current 4K tvs may have a few features that are outdated within a few years, but those are features that already don't even exist in 1080p televisions. Today, right now, 1080p televisions are already outdated, they won't suddenly be less outdated 2 years from now. 4 years from now they will be as archaic as SD televisions are today.

Considering that most people buy tvs on around a 5 year replacement cycle that means buying a 1080p television is a near guarantee that your tv will be and antique by the time you are ready to buy a new one.

New content from this point forward will almost all be available in 4K, with the portion increasing exponentially with time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can only judge based on why my eyes tell me, and my eyes are very good.

i know I said I would ignore you if you spouted this nonsense, but I can't.

---

Sounds like most of your posts on the politics board. You obviously had your mind made up already, why come here picking a fight? Other people have different opinions. Go buy your damn 4K tv. We'll laugh but you won't care.

---

yeah, I already had my mind made up to buy a 4K tv after doing my research and seeing them in person. I came here for advice on which 4K tv to go with.

So far some people have posted responses bashing 4K in general but offered absolutely no compelling alternatives

Most content isn't available in native 1080p today. Why do you think everything will be in 4k in a few years?

quote:

---

Most content isn't available in native 1080p today. Why do you think everything will be in 4k in a few years?

---

what content isn't available in 1080p?

quote:

---

New content from this point forward will almost all be available in 4K, with the portion increasing exponentially with time.

---

Pure hyperbole.

It is early in 2015. There will be zero 4K blu-rays this year. There will be no network shows not on a streaming network that are 4K. No college football games in 4K.

quote:

---

This board is full of people that want the latest electronics and gadgets. Yet when the 4k debate comes up most say it's too soon and not necessary. That should tell you something

---

the only argument that it is "too soon" is that it's too expensive and not worth the price increase over a 1080p TV.

This argument definitely held water 6 months ago, but right now it's at best a few hundred dollars.

If your aim was to buy a tv of a certain size, and that was your only objective, you could make an argument not to buy a 4K tv, since you can still get a cheap-o 60hz tv for less. This is not, and never has been, my goal. I have a specific amount of money to spend on a television and for that amount of money I can get a 4K tv.

I would very much like somebody with a more informed opinion to tell me what features I get in a $1000 1080p TV that I don't get in a $1000 4K tv.

quote:

---

quote:

---

the transition from SD to HD was nearly instantaneous, by all observations 4K is happening at least as fast.

---

---

It took around a decade for HD to become ubiquitous.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most content isn't available in native 1080p today. Why do you think everything will be in 4k in a few years?

---

what content isn't available in 1080p?

---

Almost all major networks for starters. They are 720p or 1080i.

quote:

---

quote:

---

New content from this point forward will almost all be available in 4K, with the portion increasing exponentially with time.

---

Pure hyperbole.

It is early in 2015. There will be zero 4K blu-rays this year. There will be no network shows not on a streaming network that are 4K. No college football games in 4K.

---

Network shows not streaming and college football games have exactly 0 influence on my decision at all. I haven't had a cable subscription in months and I watch football games in bars anyways.

Your first point is questionable though, and you may be right, or you may not. At a minimum Sony and Microsoft will very likely update their consoles in the fall with 4K capability.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most content isn't available in native 1080p today. Why do you think everything will be in 4k in a few years?

---

what content isn't available in 1080p?

---

Almost all major networks for starters. They are 720p or 1080i.

---

irrelevant, don't have cable

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most content isn't available in native 1080p today. Why do you think everything will be in 4k in a few years?

---

what content isn't available in 1080p?

---

I realized at the very beginning of the thread that the OP is an a-hole. Then as I kept reading I realized he is also an uninformed idiot. This post took the cake though! He has no clue......

---

I still stand by it. The only source that isn't available entirely in 1080p is live television. But on a content level the same shows and movies are almost all available in 1080p or higher through download and streaming services. So saying that "content" isn't available in 1080p is wrong. The fact that walmart sells a DVD of a movie alongside the Blu Ray of the same movie isn't evidence that content isn't available in HD.

A television channel is not content, it is a medium that carries content, the same content that is available in a number of other places as well. That content is available at 1080p or 4K in those other places.

So that means the only real content that is not available in 1080p is live sports and live local news, which don't come even close to being considered "most content."

and still not a single person has said "check out this 1080p TV because ______"

quote:

---

quote:

---

That won't be near the norm in a few years.

---

you base that assumption on what exactly? the transition from SD to HD was nearly instantaneous, by all observations 4K is happening at least as fast.

just today the pricing for Vizio's next line of 4K tvs was leaked, revealing that they will be offering a 40" 4K tv for $500 before the summer.

Current 4K tvs may have a few features that are outdated within a few years, but those are features that already don't even exist in 1080p televisions. Today, right now, 1080p televisions are already outdated, they won't suddenly be less outdated 2 years from now. 4 years from now they will be as archaic as SD televisions are today.

Considering that most people buy tvs on around a 5 year replacement cycle that means buying a 1080p television is a near guarantee that your tv will be and antique by the time you are ready to buy a new one.

New content from this point forward will almost all be available in 4K, with the portion increasing exponentially with time.

---

The reason you think that the SD to HD switch was "near instantaneous" was because the TV stations had to upgrade to HD transmitters by a certain date by law or they wouldn't get their license renewed.

It took many years to get to that point.

I doubt any TV stations will be looking to make the transition to 4K transmitters anytime soon.

you continue to harp on the differences visualized by your amazing eyes, yet you comment on the display arrangements, so i assume you realize they maximize the aesthetic appeal to attract people such as yourself

no one on here is anti-4k, it's just that a 4k TV (especially low-end that your are going for) is pointless at this point due to the lack of content. that is unless you plan on cycling the display video that has already captured your attention at the AV stores.

I'm not currently in the market for a new tv, but if i was i would get a 4k OLED

quote:

---

you continue to harp on the differences visualized by your amazing eyes, yet you comment on the display arrangements, so i assume you realize they maximize the aesthetic appeal to attract people such as yourself

no one on here is anti-4k, it's just that a 4k TV (especially low-end that your are going for) is pointless at this point due to the lack of content. that is unless you plan on cycling the display video that has already captured your attention at the AV stores.

---

did you miss the point where I said that in 3 different stores in 3 vastly different arrangements, I observed exactly the same thing?

Unless somebody can post tech specs that prove otherwise, this observation is the only thing I have to go on. I also haven't found any reviews that offer any more insight.

So right now the ONLY reason that's been given to not buy 4K at the same price point as 1080p is that "there is no 4k content"

As if I have to reiterate, this point is dumb for several reason. The top 2 being that 1: there is 4k content, 2: it would be asinine to assume that there won't be more 4K content well before the end of the life of the TV.

Why would anybody buy something that they're going to have for 3 to 5 years without considering what will happen in that lifecycle?

As I have said repeatedly, I do not care even one tiny little bit what "broadcasters" are or are not doing regarding 4K. The decision makes no different to my decision at all, since I do not now nor will I likely have in the foreseeable future, cable.

I get almost all of my content through Netflix and Amazon Prime, both of which have native 4K content and are adding more native 4K content monthly.

So for the billionth time, unless somebody can definitively make a case for a 1080p televison based on performance rather than simply based on not being 4K, kindly piss off.