Hi guys,
I am expecting good deals over christmas period on TVs. I would prefer around 60" screen.
For a BIG size lounge full of light, which 60" TV would give a better result FHD or UHD? Went to JB last weekend, saw them both on display but on a sony 60" they were both looking same on picture quality.
Any suggestions?
UHD is a more future proofing resolution. I think it seems more worthwhile on 60" displays and larger. You have to look at how far away you sit from the TV and whether you have any 4K content or are likely to purchase a 4K blu ray home theatre setup.
I recommend a 100Hz refresh rate on a 4K panel and minimum 60Hz for a Full HD display.
Thanks for response!
I wont be probably watching any 4K blue ray things..
I am planning to buy a satellite channel box to watch overseas channels, which is plug and play kind of thing. It runs on internet.
You have to look at… whether you have any 4K content or are likely to purchase a 4K blu ray
+1 for this. I would have thought that FHD is fine unless you are using the latest gaming consoles.
How good is your (and everyone else's) eyesight and how far back are you going to sit? Even with perfect eyesight, sitting any more than 3m from the screen, the benefits of UHD are going to rapidly decline.
This is an excellent chart to help visualise… (note that the distance is in feet - divide by 3 to get to metres)
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
And what source are you likely to be using?
Free to Air TV or even Foxtel HD aren't going to benefit from UHD certainly for a long time, and unlikely to be within the lifetime of the TV
DVD/Blu-Ray aren't going to benefit - ever
Presto and Stan - no current benefit, and given that Presto doesn't even do HD, seems unlikely that they'll jump to UHD within the next 5 years. Stan might upgrade to UHD in the next few years when NBN is further progressed.
Netflix - has some UHD content assuming you have a fast enough connection (ie Cable or NBN)
Downloaded content - has some UHD content
So UHD is only relevant if you sit close enough and already use or plan to use services that offer UHD content and have (or will get) a sufficiently fast enough Internet connection to obtain UHD content.
I will be watching from a distance of 3 to 4 mtr. So i guess FHD would be great for me as i don't watch 4K Movies or things like that.
Definitely sounds like it'd be worth saving the pennies that you'd have spent to buy a UHD panel to get a higher quality FullHD panel, or to buy content…
yeah i guess now all i have to do is wait for good deal on a 60" FHD hopefully over the christmas!!
like this
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/176302
I am also considering purchasing Netflix or equivalent.
Currently have ADSL internet which has average speed.
You need a connection of about 5mbps to get HD Netflix
UHD Netflix requires at least 15mbps I think.
So the sales are before Xmas or After Xmas….?
I'm in the same boat. Now is 65" in fhd now an option given you won't need uhd?!
Have a look at the 65" LG OLED TV.
Nice TV, nice price as well!
If you were going above 60inch I would definitely recommend UHD as it has more pixels to cover the screen acreage. My 55UHD definitely produces a better free-to-air pic than any FHD LED I had previously. It can render the skin tones way better.
Now having said all that…. when I got my 4k tv there was a curved oled fhd that blew away everything else in the shop including the 4k TVs. The only reasons that I didn't buy it was price and the fact that I do watch 4k content.
As per my link above UHD wont matter after a certain distance (that being about 3-4m), depending on your visual acuity. You need to be into projector size screens before it'll make a difference.
Better off to spend the money on a higher quality FullHD panel - which you kinda mention yourself.
UHD is largely comparable to high sampling rate music. It's not going to make much, if any difference in real life.
I don't agree with the last part of your statement and I wonder if you actually have a 4k TV. 4K content is clearly superior to FHD.
We watch the tv from within the 3-4m range so we get the benefit when watching 4k content. We have a small lounge/dining area.
The OP has not said what sort of content they will be viewing - and that has to play some part in the decision.
BTW, we often just down load movies in SD when we want to be sure Fetch won't choke. We just adjust to the lower resolution and deal with it.
So what I am saying is that if their main viewing is poor quality FTA, which is 1080i and often less, and a few FHD movies on cable, then buy the TV that best meets their viewing habits.
The OP has not mentioned his budget either.
Also, the problem with Carlton Bale's chart is that he forgot to mention the reverse scenario - if the viewing distance remains the same (eg. 3m from screen) how big a screen can I purchase before the image quality begins to look crap. 42inch used to be the sweet spot for HD and 55 inch was the sweet spot for FHD, 2.5k and 4k allow you to go bigger.
So for me, in my small lounge room, I will never buy a 70inch TV because FTA will just look rough on it from a 3m viewing distance.
I think most people sit further than 4m from their TV, hence my comment about UHD making no difference in real life.
I'm basing that "thought" on life experience, I don't know a single person who has their couch less than 4m from their telly!
You're the first person, making you the exception rather than the rule until I see/hear further evidence that sitting closer than 4m is more prevalent.
The reverse is part of the chart… if you can notice the improvement of FHD or UHD then clearly you'll notice the decrease if you have a lower resolution screen.
The lines drawn are based on the visual acuity of a person with "perfect" 20:20 vision. People can have better or worse vision than 20:20, so the lines are simply a guide. If you don't have "perfect" vision, you can assume that the lines are the best case scenario. If you have better than 20:20 vision, you can assume the lines are worst case scenario.
@scubacoles: Actually people living in small apartments will often have viewing distances less than 4m. So unless you have some survey data that says otherwise I think a lot of people will be in the same situation as me.
You are partly correct about the chart however what it is still mis-leading is that it doesn't clearly state at what distance and screen size does the image quality become unacceptably pixelated.
@RustyStainless
My budget is within $1500 and as i mentioned already i would be watching FTA, HD movies and will also be using TV Box for overseas channels via internet. Thanks.
@RustyStainless:
I used to live in a relatively small <50sqm 2br unit and still had my TV at 4m..
Most lounge rooms (even in apartments) are bigger than 4m square and most rooms are arranged so the TV is on one wall and couches against the other.
I used to have a TV in my sharehouse bedroom, which was probably in the 3-4m range. But not many people have a 50"+ bedroom TV, so again I think this is an exception to the rule.
"unacceptably pixelated" is a relative term dependent on individual preference as well as quality of eyesight. No table can ever factor that. There's certainly nothing misleading. The article is (and I have been) very clear that the table is looking solely at visual acuity of a person with 20:20 vision.
@nkdangar: If you can a 60in UHD for the same price as a 60in FHD then you would definitely go the UHD. If you wanted to 60 bigger, then I would definitely advise UHD. Sure you could use the arguement that if you just sit far enough back all TVs look the same, but that really defeats the point of buying a large flat screen - YOU WANT IT TO LOOK BIG!
A friend of mine bought a 70inch FHD and I can assure you that the image starts to look pretty rough when the low quality FTA content comes through. A lot people don't realise how much content is coming across the airwaves at only SD576 - it usually tells you just as you change channel. A UHD TV can upscale this content better has there are more pixels available to try smooth out the picture.
@scubacoles: So you've been in all these small units and you're sure that every one is set up how yours was? I don't think so. By the way, how close do your kids sit to the TV?
Here's some stats about the number of people living in smaller style accommodation, which is the futre trend for Sydney:
The lowest proportion of households living in separate houses is found in Sydney. The Inner Sydney region (22%) and Eastern Suburbs (29%) have the lowest proportion of households living in separate houses across NSW. The middle-regions of Sydney (including Lower Northern Sydney, Inner Western Sydney, Central Western Sydney, St. George-Sutherland, and the Northern Beaches) are also characterised by a relatively low proportion of households living in separate houses (between 44% and 63%).
http://atlas.nsw.gov.au/public/nsw/home/topic/article/housin…
So small space lounge/dining arrangements are pretty common - not an exception.
And most people want a BIG screen TV so that things LOOK BIG - if you don't then I reckon you are the exception. I have not met a person yet who bought a 60inch TV because it would be "just average".
Unacceptably pixelated is a pretty simple concept - it looks crap, and the THX group has a system of ratings that deal with all facets of what makes good home theatre - quality of picture and quality of the sound system. EG the Logitech Z623 has a THX rating. From Carlton Bale:
"In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50″ plasma TV (even though the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50″ screen is 5.6 ft)."
Seems like THX have an oppinion on what is "Unacceptable".
@RustyStainless:
"you're sure that every one is set up how yours"
Pretty much… Most people have their TV on 1 wall and the Couch hard against another.
In a small room, you need to make the most of the space you have, so you tend not to plonk stuff in the middle of the room, cause it makes it feel even smaller!
A 3m square room is pretty small. Most people wouldn't put up with that size room as a bedroom, let alone a lounge room!
If you have a large room, then you light put the couch in the middle of the room, but it's unlikely to be less than 4m from a screen.
I'm not arguing that you should sit further back, I'm not your Mum, sit as close as you like! I'm commenting on the reality that people DO sit further back!
Even you think that THX have gone overboard on their test, yet their test setup is based on the chart we've been arguing about all along! You NEED to sit that close to see the individual pixels on a 50" screen (assuming 20:20 vision - which is not the best vision you can get, just the average)!
Taking your THX test to point…but talking UHD screens
To meet the THX test, the equivalent size screen you need at 5.6ft is ~90".
At your "opinion" 6.5ft distance, you need a ~105" screen.
ie your 3-4m (10-14ft) viewing distance of a 60" UHD screen is well an truly outside of THX parameters and I'd hazard a guess that even with 40:20 vision, your'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a FHD and UHD set in a blind test.
Finally, a FullHD TV that costs the same money as a UHD set is more than likely going to have better image processing circuitry than the UHD set. As such, FTA TV will likely look better on the FHD set than the UHD set at the same distance.
If you can a 60in UHD for the same price as a 60in FHD then you would definitely go the UHD.
Not necessarily. If it's the same price, the UHD model is very likely to have inferior hardware (image processing, features).
A UHD TV can upscale this content better has there are more pixels available to try smooth out the picture.
Pixels on their own do not determine a better picture. Source material and image processing is just as important.
The higher resolution doesn't mean it can upscale better, it just means it has to upscale further.
@scubacoles: Your room layout is not correct for a lounge/dining comnination, you would break the room long ways so the the tv was at one end and the lounge chair would divide the room, that way you can watch the tv from either the lounge chair or the dining table. That's how we've done it in all our houses. In our current house the lounge/dining combination is about 6mx4m.
What is not clear in the Carlton Bale article is that there is another equally relevant way to chart the data. On one axis you put screen size and on the other axis you put signal size 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p. By charting the information this way you get a pixels per inch number.
So if you are looking for the iMax effect in your own home then you might be looking for a viewing angle of 60 degrees or more horizontally and you will be looking for high pixel densities to cover imperfections in the image.
Here's a piece from Dolby on the impact of screen size:
"There are obvious relationships between subtended screen angle and the
filmgoer’s experience. As the screen angle gets larger, the story impact gets
greater —the audience feels less like TV watchers, and more like
participants in the action on the screen. The eye’s theoretical field-of-view is
110 degrees—a movie screen subtending such an angle is hard to ignore! All the
connections between eye and brain are derived from the film, and the observer
is potentially completely involved in the film."
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/screen-size-the-impa…
If you are just looking for an excuse not to buy a UHD tv then you can just keep telling youself that you are not going to have the tv too close, so why bother. In fact if you put the tv half way down the back yard you could probably get an old 42in SD plamsa for about $50 and that would be as good as a UHD tv. Too easy.
And I don't know how you figure that the FHD would upscale FTA content better than a UHD when the UHD has 4 times as many pixels to work with with and using later model circuitry.
@Max Power:
"Not necessarily. If it's the same price, the UHD model is very likely to have inferior hardware (image processing, features)."
Don't agree. UHD is the newer tech. And if TVs are the same brand then I would definitely take the later tech.
The only other thing that you might consider are Smart TV features, if you use those features.
Each to there own, but that's the way I would be going.
Yes image processing is a tough one since each brand of TV could be handling the upscaling in a different manner. But in the end, 4k gives a better processor more pixels to work with.
@nkdangar:
For your requirements and budget, Full HD.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-st…
@RustyStainless:
You seem to be confusing the argument here. I fully appreciate the impact of large screen viewing!
I own a projector with a 3.5m diagonal. The resolution is crap, but my eyesight is not 20:20 and at our 5-6m viewing distance I can only just discern the pixels and only on a white screen. I'll upgrade it one day when the second bulb blows and I fully anticipate that a FullHD unit will have completely undiscernable pixels (for me).
If you want an IMAX experience in your house, I highly recommend it!
At 3-4m with a 60" screen you don't have even remotely close to an "IMAX experience", you're definitely just watching TV sorry.
I'm not buying a UHD TV, cause
1) I have a perfectly functional TV for day to day viewing and a PJ for less regular TV events and movies..
2) they're too expensive
3) we don't have NBN yet, so have no 4K content available to us
4) I'm not prepared to artificially cut our lounge room in half to be able to appreciate the resolution benefits
5) I'm saving my money for a projector upgrade when my current one dies.
@Max Power:
I don't think RustyStainless wants to read about how he's wasted money on a 4K TV to sit too far away from it. He's happy in denial land.
This bit is REALLY interesting!
"Instead of slicing up one piece of motherglass into four 42-inch 1080p LCDs, what if you just kept the whole thing as one piece? What would you have? You'd have an 84-inch TV. Use the exact same (or similar) drive elements/electronics and all the various bits, and you've got a 3,840x2,160-pixel, 84-inch UHD TV."
@scubacoles: The only person in denial is you. And what you are in denial about is that you don't believe that there is any 4K content.
Also, I'm glad that you have now let on that you have a 137in projector set up. At your 5m viewing distance that is starting to hit UHD territory. Check your chart.
Now…
1. Good for you, you got a tv, but hey no worries about a small 60in, cause you got a 137in Projection screen.
2. Compared to what??? UHD is now only slightly dearer than FHD.
3. What you choose to watch is your business. I just happened to have watch the Batman vs Superman trailer on Youtube in 4k. Yes, Youtube delivers 4k content. I also generate my own 4K content from my Panasonic GH4, GoPro Hero 4 Black and my Sony FDR-X1000V action cam. And that's what I said right at the start. I didn't get the curved oled tv because I watch 4k content.
4. I don't give a shite about what you are prepared to do in your lounge room - if you don't then maybe you just miss out. And just suck it up that there a lot of people who have to deal with living in smaller accommodation. I just realised tonight that the viewing distance in my lounge is actually about 2.2m
5. Save up for a good UHD projector, and get some new glasses for that less that 20:20 vision.
@scubacoles: Max Power - I think scubacoles must be off his medication. scubacoles what are you really crapping on with now. I mean really?? Are you for real?
End of discussion.
@RustyStainless:
The point is that you aren't prepared to sit 2m from your screen which is actually where you need to be sitting to appreciate your relatively small (for the number of pixels) screen.
You choose to sit further back from your screen, essentially rendering your extra pixels null and void. Your eyes have lower resolution than the screen at your viewing distance, therefore the screen might be outputting 4K but your eyes are only seeing 1-2K of merged pixels.
The cNet article highlights my point exactly.
UHD is great for large screens in the 84"+ range. If you have a screen that is more "normal" sized, but you havent changed your seating position, then you're just spending money on something your eye is physically incapable of appreciating.
Agreed End of Discussion, hope you bump your lounge a metre or more closer and thank me later.
@scubacoles: You clearly do not read properly.
I just told you that the viewing distance in my lounge - screen to eyeball - is about 2.2m.
But all this coming from the guy who is viewing a 137in screen from 5-6m.
The chart is clearly telling YOU that you would benefit from UHD.
Correct, I missed that point.
I don't have 20:20 vision, so the table is well and truly best case for me. I'm pretty confident that I don't need a UHD projector and even if I could benefit from it, I can't afford one anyway.
Excellent, we finish in agreement!
Glad to hear that you're getting the value from your investment.
I recently bought a LG 60" 200Hz UHD TV and I am quiet happy with it. Free to Air TV make no difference between FHD and UHD. I think Free to Air TV looks better on my old FHD TV, probably because it is only 42 inch.
Forget about Netflix Ultra HD. It is not worth. Only very few 4K items available. Netflix HD is the way to go.
I don't think there is no huge difference between FHD and UHD for the moment. But if you have no intention to buy another big screen TV in next 5 years or so, you better buy a UHD TV.
60UF850/770T?
60UF850T
All the same. Better off looking at other things such as refresh rate, aspect ratio etc