A/V Veteran

Should You Wait to Buy Your Next TV?

Thomas J. Norton  |  Jul 21, 2015

While many of you can’t recall when the VCR shook up the TV landscape, I remember the transition to color television. It was an exciting time, but those new sets were very expensive relative to the average middle class income. They were also seldom larger than 21-inches—about the size of many of today’s computer monitors.

Understandably, many consumers waited years for color television to come down in price. I still remember relatives and family friends claiming that they were waiting for them to be perfected. If by “perfected” they meant that they wanted to see the technology stabilize, they’re waiting!

Technology is never stable. While the Ian Malcolm character in Jurassic Park may have said, “Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should,” (truly an odd statement coming from a scientist—oh wait, it came from a screenwriter) there’s always something new and enticing just over the next hill.

Even today, with the move to Ultra HD and its obvious enticements, engineers in labs everywhere (but mostly in Japan, Korea, and China) are winnowing away on models for 2017 (2016’s sets are already set in stone). Meanwhile, supervisors are analyzing their options 2018 and beyond. In just the past 15 years or so we’ve seen the transition to HD, digital displays, flat panels, HDMI, LCDs (first with fluorescent backlighting, then LEDs, and now quantum dots), DVDs, Blu-rays, video streaming and downloading, smart TV apps, 3D, 4K, Ultra HD, OLEDs and (soon) advanced color for UHD plus high dynamic range (HDR) and Ultra HD Blu-ray.

It’s all confusing enough to drive the average consumer back to the multiplex, where he or she can enjoy digital projection, 3D, Atmos audio, IMAX, Big-D, Prime, pre-show advertisements, and the latest exhausting, computer enhanced alien attack on New York or a San Andreas-ed California—all accompanied by stale popcorn and sticky floors.

But I digress. When a manufacturer shows an 8K Ultra HDTV prototype at CES (as some have recently, even while surrounded by their new 4K models), the average consumer has to wonder if delaying a purchase for a couple of years might be the smart move.

Sales of flat screen TVs have already leveled off. The favored explanation for this is that most folks already have a flat screen set. Many buyers are also stuck on the long established habit of only replacing their TV every ten years or so. Combine that with the “promise” of even more goodies next year and you have to wonder how many of today’s consumers are also waiting for “perfection.”

The computer paradigm hasn’t just affected television. It has permeated technology in general. That’s not a bad thing; we all want better, and we want it yesterday. But perhaps it’s time for at least the basic parameters of Ultra HD to settle down. Fortunately, to an extent, they have. What we can expect soon in addition to 4K resolution will be advanced color depth (10-bits per color rather than today’s 8-bits), a wider range of colors (the P3 color gamut—similar to the color gamut used in digital cinema), and high dynamic range (HDR).

We’ll also see Ultra HD Blu-ray, which may well become the only source that reliably offers all of these advances. Don’t even think about seeing “full Ultra HD” on broadcast. After spending millions on the transition to HD little more than 10 years ago, do you really think terrestrial stations will spend more to offer Ultra HD any time soon? Ditto for cable and satellite providers—unless they can extract even higher monthly fees from their customers, which may well drive many of those customers to downloading and streaming.

But do you think getting your programming from the Internet is the answer? As the pipes become more and more clogged, offering Ultra HD will require massive compression, which might well drive the quality of Ultra HD downloads (and certainly streaming—most viewers want their shows now) below what can be achieved even from today’s plain vanilla HD Blu-ray format.

But a word to potential Ultra HD Blu-ray providers: If you expect that format to succeed, resist the temptation to make it available only at boutique prices!

So what about the other improvements some would like to see from Ultra HD—things like 12-bit color (or higher), a Rec.2020 color gamut (which will require 12-bit color, and may turn out to be both technically impractical and perceptibly troublesome), advanced color subsampling (4:2:2 rather than the 4:2:0 we have today and will continue to have with Ultra HD for the foreseeable future), and even high frame rate (hooray, soap opera for all—built into the source!) Some or all of these may all come in time, but I wouldn’t put off buying an Ultra HD set waiting for them.

If you want to be reasonably future proof, however (though future-proofing can never be guaranteed) insist that the Ultra HD set you buy today can handle 10-bit color from input to screen (without downconverting to 8-bits for internal processing), accurately produce a P3 color gamut (preferably switching automatically between P3 and today’s Rec.709 HD standard, as needed by the source), and accommodate HDR-graded material.

Most of today’s Ultra HD sets do 4K, together with HDCP 2.2 (the copy protection common on Ultra HD material), HEVC (otherwise known as h.265, the compression codec most widely used for Ultra HD), and (usually) at least one HDMI 2.0 input. But they don’t offer advanced color (at least in the form of an accessible P3 gamut) or HDR. We expect to see more Ultra HD sets later this year that do, though it’s unlikely they’ll carry bargain prices. And there’s no guarantee that sets currently lacking such features can be upgraded to them with new firmware. It’s possible that a set’s hardware will place a limit on what can be done in firmware. If a salesman tells you otherwise, I’d get it in writing!

COMMENTS
jnemesh's picture
Submitted by jnemesh on July 21, 2015 - 2:28pm

"Don’t even think about seeing “full Ultra HD” on broadcast. After spending millions on the transition to HD little more than 10 years ago, do you really think terrestrial stations will spend more to offer Ultra HD any time soon?"

Does anyone really care if cable, satellite, or OTA broadcast upgrades to UHD? They are relics, and most people are moving away from those providers as primary sources anyway. UHD IS available RIGHT NOW from Amazon, Netflix, YouTube and other streaming services...Amazon is supporting HDR, RIGHT NOW.

Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV and the rest are going to be FORCED to catch up, FAST, if they want to compete. And, actually, they are. I have seen articles talking about Comcast (Tivo as well) releasing UHD capable set top boxes THIS YEAR, and DirecTV is also releasing UHD set tops THIS YEAR.

This isn't going to be a repeat of the transition from SD to HD, this is happening MUCH faster this time around.

MatthewWeflen's picture
Submitted by MatthewWeflen on July 21, 2015 - 8:44pm

But then, the question really is, will ComCast and the like create capacity for true, high quality 4K signals, or will they compress it all to heck and pass it off as something it's not?

MatthewWeflen's picture
Submitted by MatthewWeflen on July 21, 2015 - 8:45pm

Call me a pedant, but I hate it when people say "flat screen" TV. It's a flat panel. Screens were flat way before flat panels, and screens are getting curvy again, too, for some reason.

dnoonie's picture
Submitted by dnoonie on July 22, 2015 - 2:22am

It's got to be compellingly better than my KURO to incentivize me to upgrade. What's available now just doesn't impress relative to what I have.

Funding is a factor too, I'm spending $ on room upgrades and calibration upgrades because it's in the best interest of the HT project as a whole. A screen change just isn't really an upgrade at this point.

Cheers,

true audio's picture
Submitted by true audio on July 22, 2015 - 6:47am

Amen brother! I have a Kuro 141. With all the bells and whistles I've add for improved picture quality, it's not going anywhere.

1videophile's picture
Submitted by 1videophile on July 22, 2015 - 8:56am

I've seen 4k tv next to 1080p @ 10 ft. it's not the dramatic jump we had with SD to HD in the past. 80% of my tv viewing is from cable box and the quality is good to bad with no foreseeable improvements coming soon. I would like to upgrade if 4k ultra hd oled tv becomes the standard with improved upconversion(It seems to be the best for now but too costly)and a 4k ultra hd blu ray player.

vqworks's picture
Submitted by vqworks on July 22, 2015 - 3:03pm

Someone had to have noticed the 8K display for the article. I remember reading 2 or even 3 years ago that UHD was really just a transitional format and 8K offers the best resolution that the human eye could resolve. It was first used on-location at the 2012 London Olympics.

Of course, even now most of the hyped UHD sets are still offering less-than-promised UHD color gamut because sources with this color aren't available yet. All the UHD demos at your local Cosco or Sams club are also done using LED-backlit displays with edge enhancement. What happened to the OLEDs that LG was promoting???

Which brings us to another question? For those of us who value consistently deep black level and contrast at extremely wide viewing angles, what good are the bulk of the current offerings if they're LED or even Quantum-backlit? UHD and Full HD are not as drastically different at typical home viewing distances as manufacturers would love consumers to think, either. Why by UHD when SUHD (8K) is approaching within a few years?

For the time being, if you're enjoying a Full HD OLED, Kuro or Panasonic ZT60/ZT65 there's little or no incentive to buy into a higher resolution format with dramatically inferior black-level and off-angle viewing performance.

CinemaDude's picture
Submitted by CinemaDude on July 26, 2015 - 3:47am

The one element in all this is the receptor, i.e., the consumer who has to PERCEIVE that there is not only a tangible improvement in any new technology, but that technology has to create a real desire prior to any commitment by that consumer to 1) dump a perfectly functional piece of existing equipment and 2) shell out the money for new replacement equipment, ESPECIALLY when that consumer is perfectly happy with that he/she's already got.

My brother and family shall be my test case. He just bought an LG 4K, OLED, 3D set (yes curved, for whatever reason) and the consensus of all the adults in the room AND the youngsters after a week of intense viewing was, as they all agreed and he specifically put it, "I will never need to buy another TV again; this is the best picture I have ever seen...better that anything I have ever seen in a movie theatre, including IMAX."

Thing is, he's not particularly tech savvy, not particularly interested in knowing what all the acronyms stand for and even less what they mean. He has a computer, a smart phone (although he is not enamored of it), probably only uses 20% of its functionality and probably will use even less of the smart functions on the new LG. Point is, he is a typical HT consumer; he knows what he likes and right now, he loves the picture on this new TV, and I guarantee, it will take something monumental to come alone that will shake him into plunking down even more than what he paid for this TV to get a "higher" tech replacement.

I consider him and the family (including youngsters who are probably more in tune with tech advances...for example they understand what Dolby Atmos is...pretty much who will need to be convinced to move on to 8K technology. He thinks he's seeing the best picture he ever will need and more importantly, ever want to see. His Home Theatre, in his estimation, is better than IMAX. So any new technology will have to go a long way to convince him to junk that fairly expensive investment; I certainly don't think 8K will, nor will the promise of a wider color gamut, no matter what new moniker they slap on it. A new technology will have to provide something that is dramatic and perceived as very desirable by the majority of the TV buying public.

The difference between SD and HD was was that kind of difference. Even DVD to BluRay didn't move him -- he still watched DVD content -- so how will 4K to 8K, ESPECIALLY when even the majority of theatres are still playing 2K rez, not anything much more that what BluRay delivers at home, light up his imagination? And just like the broadcasters who invested hundreds of millions in HD equipment are not likely going to be rushing into spending even more millions yet again on 4K or 8K infrastructure, exhibitors who invested equally exorbitant sums to convert from film to 2K digital are certainly not eager to junk perfectly functional 2K projectors to upgrade to 4K; 8K isn't even a thought at this point, so to what is the consumer going to compare his home TV/HT, if not his local multiplex...still showing 2K images? Even the small number of theatres which have installed 4K projects do not always get 4K content. Not all movies are distributed in 4K; many still shot in 2K! So where is this 8K content going to come from to feed 8K displays?

Next there are the those receptors again --the eyeballs. Take a 50 yr old -- can his vision actually resolve the difference between these higher resolution display devices? What do you think the average vision acuity of a 50 or 60 year old is? I know what mine is. When everyone said passive 3D is terrible because they halve the rez to each eye, I found I couldn't see any difference between active and passive and so I happily chose a passive 3D TV with all its advantages (taking home all those RealD 3D glasses I PAID FOR at the theatre). When was the last time I even got an updated eyeglass prescription? I can tell you -- many years over when I needed to. I am typical.

The statement isn't “Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should,” more accurately it should be, "Just because you can, doesn't mean that they will buy it." Just because it may be better than what went before, doesn't always mean it will be commercially viable. Just think of all the technological advancements that clutter the technology graveyard because, even though they may have been improvements -- even significant improvements, they died a slow (sometimes even a rapid) death because the public was simply not excited by what they offered.

Me thinks 8K is going to be a very, VERY hard sell.

dukewayne's picture
Submitted by dukewayne on July 27, 2015 - 10:28pm

I see a few people have made good points about this issue. I guess this is really one big issue of technology under the big umbrella of upgrading devices...which are usually expensive for most people. Whatever the case, I'm currently going with a plan of waiting until Ultra HD has some set of agreed upon standards as is reportedly the case with the Ultra HD Blu-rays. As has been mentioned by others here, OLED once the higher quality colors are standard, will likely be a possible reasonable upgrade point. Of course if you need a TV or have a bunch of money to spend, then pick what you want whenever you want. From everything I can read though, the PQ improvement will be negligible from the current HD standards like a comment-er mentioned regarding Panny Plasma or Kuro. I guess a case could be made if your getting an 80 inch panel to which you will be sitting 5-7 feet. As mentioned already, it's about the eyeballs. It's what your senses are capable of sensing. From what I understand, the human eye can't distinguish between 2K and 4K at standard living room distances. Maybe if you sit 5-6 feet from the screen or closer. Not too many people are almost sitting on top of their tvs.

Currently, generally this talk of UHD is just marketing without any real meaning behind it. For example, this talk of streaming services offering some sort of UHD is hard to believe. Yea, they may have something that says UHD that costs $5 more, but most of these streaming companies are struggling with getting anything much above SD quality bitrates through to consumers. Once fiber becomes ubiquitous, then some sort of above HD PQ bitrates will be realistic for streaming services.

Regarding the LG OLED, consumer reports and one of the big tech websites (I can't remember) just reviewed the most recently released LG OLED HDTVs. The talk is it's the best PQ of any LED/LCD or plasma. It ain't cheap. Largest screen is 65" Read of some mention of some kinks still eg some darker spots along some edges, and some shadowy lines vertically across some screens that had to be repaired. Otherwise it's picture is supposed to be incredible. As for me, I'll also have to wait for the prices to fall far lower than $7000 or $8000 range that it's currently reported at.

Lastly and somewhat related to some of the talk in the comment section regarding cord cutting vs cable/sat. I recently read a study where people are under reporting how much and how many channels they actually watch. It's believed to be a honest under estimate. The gist of the study is that when measured, people are watching more channels for longer amounts of time then they think they are. As such the cord cutting is not going quite as fast as so many were ranting and raving about on tech and entertainment news sites for the last couple of years. Yes, the trend is still toward cord cutting. It's just people are cutting the cord at a little slower rate than expected as people are watching more cable/sat tv than they think or estimate. So, cable/sat are not going to be gone as soon as some of us might have thought. That is unless you bring a la carte and sports/ESPN into the equation. Then cable/sat could change in ways a lot faster than many of us thought. So, who knows?

wassup30's picture
Submitted by wassup30 on July 28, 2015 - 9:58am

Honestly some great stuff being posted here. But honestly here is the bottom line. Real 4k content isn't out there and probably won't be available for some time. My guess is readily available in 5 years, meaning UBHD on the shelves. For serious viewers of content (and let's be real if you are buying a TV for anything more than $4000 you fit into this category) you simply can't stream 4k the same way u can't really stream blu-rays ... the quality isn't there. Why buy an expensive TV that is 4k capable and have compressed or upscalled content being played on it. If you are looking for a new TV the 1920x1080 OLED TV is BY FAR your best bet. Also a new flat screen LG model at that resolution will be released in the americas later this year so if your wanting a new TV grab that one! Cause honestly the 4k version of the same size will be thousands more and side by side playing any Hollywood blockbuster on the content currently available you won't notice a difference!!!

In short, 4k is currently a gimmick at best. Marketing tactic TV makers use to try and sell TVs. And until 4k content is readily available (streaming services that compress their signals don't count) it simply isn't any better than owning a high quality 1080p tv, OLED highly recommended. (Granted for now I'm sticking with my Kuro :-) as price drops for OLED tech is dropping by the minute. Remmeber the original OLED TV released 2 years ago was going for $15,000 and now you can pick one up for $3,000)

X