Looking to buy a new TV

How far away will this TV be from you?

Regardless, unless you're rubbing your nose on it, all these new 4k TVs are just their to empty your wallet and will look just as good.

Similarly with monitors you want a high refresh rate, usually this is reserved for 3D capable TVs, and you have to be careful when a TV is touting 200Hz, because it's not the "refresh rate" you would normally call refresh rate.

Depending on what your budget is 1080p is a pretty good resolution to be aiming for. regardless of what any salesman tells you, you will typically sit so far away from it that the pixels are indistinguishable anyway and the difference is not as great as they will lead you to believe.

Look to LCD technologies which are "backlit with LED". They will try and swindle you into thinking the screen is LED, but in truth those are far more expensive.

3D is up to you, if you think you'll use it, but some TVs have it included anyway.

AND DON'T BE TRICKED BY "SMART TVS". There is literally nothing smart about them. It usually means another poorly cobbled together user interface with a poor array of apps run by an incredibly lackluster CPU. Most new TVs are referred to as this anyway, but don't be too bothered if one you choose doesn't use another misinforming buzzword.

The other thing I would suggest is on paper, 2 TVs can look almost identical, reciting the same contrast ratios or whatever else. You should really go into a store and see the picture reproduction yourself and look for any image ghosting. You can then also see the build quality as I've seen a few rather precarious looking stands.

My current TV is Toshiba, but I recommend Sony, Panasonic and LG TVs as well. They've done my family and I well in the past, so have no comments on any after care services I've we've never needed them!

I hope this helps and doesn't confuse more

I'm going for some LG 65" for my living room, I sit quite far away and my eye sight isn't the best. Buying loads of stuff again now im in the USA, can get a decent one for about $1200. This is mostly for entertaining guests, I'll get a better one for the home cinema I'm building once I have the money. (long term goal I'm not a Millionaire ) I will get a 4k screen for the cinema, mostly because I'll be buying a very good quality screen so the investment might be worth the possibility of having 4K later on, although I'm in agreement it's a bit of a rip off currently, but the prices are not crazy anymore, at least here in the USA.

For gaming I would definitely go for a 55". I sit fairly close to mine and it's so nice for the extra "oomph" it gives and for the readability. I used to have a 42" and there was a lot of squinting going on when gaming (TV/films were fine). Not sure 4k will become too relevant anytime soon. Then again, if it becomes like 3D (just a feature you get), then there's no harm I guess. I wouldn't pay big bucks for it.

I have a Samsung UE55H7005SQXXE and I'm pleased. It's one of those "jack of all trades" TV's that just works. Pretty sleak design. Refresh rate is solid, Colours are good (but not the best in the business). It's gotten good reviews based on tech quality. Built-in speakers are okay. Etc. But that was a little while ago and things change pretty fast. I would look around for trusty reviews and you can see which things you value more than others. For example, some TV's have absolute shitspeakers built in because it's expected that you have external ones, so it doesn't matter if you have ones but matters a lot if you don't and don't intend to get ones.

I'm tempted of buying a big screen as well now that I'm almost sure to move in the biggest room available in my centre (sitting room + bedroom for work accommodation is sweet!).

I'm not too up to date, just checking a few hands on here and there; 4k is becoming standard but there's no content other than some YouTube enthusiasts really. And PC games.

And they're already talking 5k(?)!!

So personally I wouldn't go there, but I'm quite tempted of buying a curved display TV if any, so from the quick look I've had I think they only come in 4k. Also they should be real LED like Jacko was talking about(?).

What about OLEDs? (I don't think that curved display are necessarily OLEDs)

In terms of brands, isn't Samsung supposed to be among the best?

And finally for "Smart TVs", well isn't that just standard now above a certain price range?

They're definitely not comparable to set top boxes in terms of speed, but my sister and husband got an LG about a year and a half ago and it does its job. It's not snappy in the menus, but once you are in Netflix it's fine. And YouTube you just beam from the phone.

I definitely prefer to have that out of the box instead of then adding up for a Fire TV (although I am really satisfied by the one I bought my gf) or Apple TV or similar.

Yeah, Smart TV just comes bundled these days. I fucking hate Smart TV though and I rely on my PC/PS4 for input. Netflix on PS4 is buttersmooth, love it.

My parents have a Samsung Smart TV. Worst UI I've ever seen- very slow too.

Even if you don't have a console you can probably find a media player for like 40-50 bucks that does everything better than an inbuilt POS.

When I was looking into this a month or so ago I was finding it very difficult to find any 4K TVs that didn't have significant failings in other regards. There are lots of sites out there that do all kinds of in-depth testing, but the key things I look out for are:

• Black levels
• Colour rendition
• Viewing angles

As simplistic as this might sound, just like with monitors there are still endless TVs that fail to meet these basic requirements to a satisfactory level. No matter what TV you consider, find a site like HDTVtest that objectively measures things like black levels, because nothing will piss you off more than playing a dark scene in a game and everything is just a washed-out grey rather than black, or when you don't sit literally right in the middle of the sofa in front of your TV everything starts to fade.

Regarding 4K specifically, the premium on them is so high that I would seriously just get a significantly cheaper set for now and then upgrade again in a few years. It's literally impossible to see the difference between it and 1080p beyond a very short distance (if you Google for 'TV size graph' you'll see the specifics), and in most games and TV channels we're still getting sub-1080p so we're yet to even see the true benefits of that resolution — let alone 4K which is years away from being widespread.

The key thing to keep in mind is that you can get affordable 4Ks at the moment, but the money you spend on the 4K premium could be used to get you a TV with much better handling of those bullet points above. In other words, picture quality vs resolution.

Finally, the LED thing. There are really just two variations of this term when it comes to TVs: OLED and LED-backlit.

OLED has been considered the holy grail of TVs for years, and only this year have affordable consumer sets started to appear (when I say consumer, I mean ~$5,000 rather than ~$20,000). They live up to their reputation in terms of incredible picture quality that absolutely decimates both LCD and plasma, but even these highly expensive early models still have teething issues that mean they should be avoided. Give them 2–4 years and they will absolutely dominate the TV world. The reason this technology is so excellent is because each pixel has its own individual light, allowing a black pixel to be 100% black or eye-searingly bright. This has a massive effect on quality and image depth, and actually no TV has ever achieved truly 100% black like an OLED can.

LED-backlit is basically just a better kind of LCD than the previous formats. There isn't really anything that's particularly different about it to other LCDs from a viewing perspective, because all LCDs are characterised by a backlight that sits behind all of the pixels. This means that the white pixels share the same light as the dark pixels, limiting true contrast and image depth — which is why they use various tricks like making the image darker and lighter on the fly. If you are going to get LED-backlit, consider more recent ones that have zones where there are actually a number of smaller backlights behind the screen. This isn't as good as the per-pixel lighting OLED achieves, but it does divide the screen up into 50–150 little squares which allows for some of the benefits.

You might also see quantum dots as a feature. These are cool, they have benefits, but they still have the limitations of LCDs and so they're still not as good as OLED. They're effectively a stepping stone between the image quality of traditional LCD vs OLED by allowing for pixels to be brightened up more effectively, which lets the backlight remain relatively dark while individual pixels become very light.

This is actually a terrible time to buy a TV precisely because of us being on the cusp of OLED becoming mainstream. To put it into perspective, OLED is the first truly huge jump forwards in quality since we went from CRTs to LCDs/plasmas, and just like back then we're still in the awkward 'early models are very expensive and have build/quality issues' phase. This is why I wouldn't go too crazy right now, and definitely don't pursue the cutting-edge end of things like 4K and OLED because future proofing just isn't possible right now.

Well said sir!

It's worth noting for other people that the per-pixel lighting is the same principal as the Super AMOLED screen found on phones (an offshoot of the OLED technology), which up until recently Samsung seemed to be the only ones really using. Not even the hallowed iPhones have it.

Even my old Samsung S8300 Tocco Ultra Edition (2009) had it, and the "true blacks" as the term was, are really very nice.

Could always throw a curveball and suggest a projector? variable screen size is always handy

I dunno, I think there's never been a better time to buy the average quality tv than now, your getting insane quality for your money. To be fair there's always the next big thing coming with technology, so just buy something, it's only a TV ... my 6 year old Panasonic is perfectly good just too small for my bigger room now. All this fancy new tech like motion control crap I turn off anyway because it's not what the DP intended and makes shit look cheap ...

My reasoning for a more expensive screen in the future is quality, not 4k, but I'd predict in a year or so you won't get high quality 1080p anymore at sizes about 60" 4K is a thing just not right now, if I spend $4k on a TV I'd like it last at least 5 years, and for all this talk of black levels you have to realize that most movies and shots are broadcast standard clamped so that you don't get insane color ranges and black levels ... just like hi fi audio, your paying for a post rendition "color" that the manufacturer prefers, rather than the most accurate broadcast standard, no doubt they are quite boring. (studio speakers are designed this way as are reference tv's) Hifi audio is purposely colored to give more exciting results, but it really is just preference. All of this is similar to TV's, that's why when you read customer reviews people are changing around the settings to get what they want. A reference quality monitor/screen you don't do that at all.

In fact, my fancy ass editing monitors are not even running at their capacity because for that I would need a high end Nvidia quatro gfx card and only a few applications support it ...

By the looks of reviews these days, the actual panel gets the least attention, why? because they are all good and made by a few companies, the reviews tend to focus on bullcrap features that to be fair I would never use ... reminds me of digital cameras and peoples fascination with comparing apples and oranges in a meat pie.

For all this logic, the only time I care about quality vs another screen is when they are all lined up next to each other in a shop, but in reality, at home you have no comparison so it's just another screen that you setup how you want ... I've never actually bought a TV, speakers or tech in a shop, in fact I'd bet that there is a ton of clever tweaks they make to older tv's settings to promote sales of older stock just to get rid of it ...

Thanks for the great post Through, I was a bit town off by the way Jacko had put it (no offence ) cos I know all the oled thing being interested in phones, and I remember the benefits of led back-lit when they came out… thought there was something new in between I had missed (which I'd say is the quantum dot).

Luckily I don't need it at all, if would be just to spoil myself. Saving money on there would make it easier to add a box (although I forgot I still have an X360 that could do the job, plus I still have several game to complete there).

Last thing, opinions on the curved display? My idea was that if I was going to buy American would have been for that

FYI, from wikipedia ...

On September 5, 2014, the Blu-ray Disc Association revealed that the future 4K Blu-ray Disc format will support 4K UHD (3840x2160 resolution) video at frame rates up to 60 frames per second.^[196] The standard will encode videos under the High Efficiency Video Coding standard.^[196] 4K Blu-ray Discs will support both a higher dynamic range by increasing the color depth to 10-bit per color, and a greater colorgamut by using the Rec. 2020 color space.^[196] The standard will use 4:4:4 chroma subsampling. The 4K-Blu-ray specification allows for three disc sizes, each with their own data rate: 50 GB with 82 Mbit/s, 66 GB with 108 Mbit/s, and 100 GB with 128 Mbit/s.^[196] 4K Blu-ray Disc technology will be licensed in the spring or summer of 2015, and 4K Blu-ray Disc players have an expected release date of Christmas 2015.^[196]

So, quality will be improving, not just resolution, this has nothing to do with O-LED but more the compression and standardization of formats. All major productions have been shooting 4k and 8k for a while now, and at least 10 bit. Expect a change eventually. Not sure if current tv's can display this color space to it's fullest, that's beyond my knowledge.

Was considering getting a cheap 4k panel to extednd my workspace for my pc (at 40/42" the ppi is similar to my 27" 1440p screen, which is pretty much enough for me), but that range doesn't have a displayport input and getting 60Hz at 4k over HDMI is also very iffy... Might look at a 34"+ curved cinescope monitor instead.

If I'd really want to watch movies / have a living room experience I'd probably look into a projector system instead, just curious does anyone have any experience in that regard?

You can certainly get a good TV now Chris, but what I really meant was that now is a very difficult time to buy a TV because there hasn't been a particularly significant jump in quality for quite some time now — and now that Panasonic has stopped making plasmas, it's actually harder to find a TV with good black levels compared to a few years ago.

It's not an exaggeration to say that my 2009 plasma still kicks the shit out of the black levels that most TVs my family and friends who've bought them in the last year or so have, and at least two thirds of what's in your average department store.

My dad was gobsmacked when he recently upgraded his 2010 Panasonic to a 2014 Samsung LED-backlit LCD for the same price and it was actually a significant downgrade in quality. Mostly because of grey blacks and viewing angle wash-out, which no amount of colour grading or tone adjustment could fix. Black levels are no joke!

To put it another way, the TV market is currently a lot like the PC monitor market. There are great options if you know what you're looking for, but the majority of consumer devices have relatively shitty panels. Hence why I outlined what those better options are, to avoid being the guy who wonders why you'd possibly buy a £400 (IPS) monitor when the same size can be found for £150 (TN) because you assume all modern units are good.

Haha yeah, actually I have a panasonic 42" plasma so I know what you mean

Quote from Thrik

To put it another way, the TV market is currently a lot like the PC monitor market. There are great options if you know what you're looking for, but the majority of consumer devices have relatively shitty panels. Hence why I outlined what those better options are, to avoid being the guy who wonders why you'd possibly buy a £400 (IPS) monitor when the same size can be found for £150 (TN) because you assume all modern units are good.

As with monitors, can you specifically buy an IPS / TN TV? Is that a thing?

Monitors always say what the technology is as it usually comes with associated pros/cons, but I can't recall ever seeing that level of specificity on a TV. They just say "LCD" which doesn't help because both technologies are LCD

What's stopping someone like Samsung churning out a few AMOLED TV screens and really showing off the true blacks?

I get the impression the TV industry is a long way behind what we expect for our monitors... But why?

There are crazy discounts on Amazon UK for electronics this week, I'm really tempted. The other night I was this close to buy a Sony, I think this one.
Tried to look for reviews, found one that I believed to be of this model, than was a slightly different which bummed me as -like I said- it made me this close to click "buy" as they were giving a stellar review 9/10.

[Blocked Image: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81MUsbASrOL._SL1500_.jpg]

Is there any website that you know that sums up the best TVs around, seems like same vendors have a ton of variants, not just in size unfortunately.

I'm a bit weary as well cos just the other day I had the chance to wander around shops and in the tech section there were TV from Samsung, which I always kept in high regard, looked rubbish; but all TVs looked washed out and pixelated... dunno if I was too close because they had an awful spacing.