4K Televisions: Are they worth it?

[Osprey]

Any experts on best TV settings for hockey?

I dropped $2,000 on this absolute beauty...

Samsung 65" 4K UHD HDR QLED Tizen Smart TV (QN65Q65FNFXZC) - Carbon Silver - Only at Best Buy | Best Buy Canada

Honestly it's sick, everything looks amazing (movies, TV, basketball) except hockey has puck lag. Drives me nuts. A crisp beautiful picture on everything then the puck jitters when fired. How is this possible lol. I specifically bought the 240 Motion Rate to avoid the puck lag.

Do I have a setting wrong? Movies look like the people on screen are in the room with you. Basketball is perfect. Hockey... Puck lag. Gah!

Would it have anything to do with the post above and a Best Buy specific made product? Help if you can!

PS - yes puck lag is on both HD and 4K channels. Watched World Jr's and Leafs vs Wild in 4k...have watched other games in HD. Happens on both. And yes I have a 4k box Thank you to anyone that can help!

Go into the TV settings, then the Picture section and look for Auto Motion Plus or something named similarly. Try each of the settings. If they don't help, try changing any other picture settings that you find there. Finally, if nothing there helps and the TV has picture modes (ex. one for movies, one for sports and one for games), try putting it on the one for sports.

 

[SH15]

Thank you so much to both of you for the replies, I will try this for sure

 

[ArchAngel55]

Thank you so much to both of you for the replies, I will try this for sure

All cables also max out at 60hz. Even the HD ones. So it's kind of a bottle neck. The human eye also can only see 120hz. They inflate the names like 240 motionflow but it's normally half or just 120hz. It's to get people to buy them.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Costco Wholesale Bought this tv. The OS is super sluggisb, which kind of explains the relatively low price, but I'll most likely be using an external device so it's not a huge deal. I'm pretty satisfied with the quality of the display

 

[aleshemsky83]

I have to say, I'm playing 4k native games from my PC.

I cannot get over how almost nonexistent the difference between 4k and 1080p is.

What was all the hype about?

 

[aleshemsky83]

Protip for those not happy with the way your screen looks. Turning off "energy saving mode" is usually not enough, you have to turn off the actual sensor or it will dim the screen even if you have the mode turned off. I've had that issue both with this tv and my last as well.

It's a night and day difference the second you turn the light sensor off.

 

[Osprey]

I have to say, I'm playing 4k native games from my PC.

I cannot get over how almost nonexistent the difference between 4k and 1080p is.

What was all the hype about?

It's going to take longer for the benefits of 4K to reach gaming. It's not as relatively simple as recorded content (ex. movies and TV), where there are fewer variables. Games have only as much detail in their textures as the developers allow, and 4K-quality textures are rather prohibitive right now. Besides the extra work to make all of a game's textures of such high resolution, it would make games too large (they're already 50-100GB with HD-quality textures, and consider that 4K is 4x the resolution of HD) and even today's beefiest GPUs probably couldn't handle it (ex. a game requiring 6GB of GPU RAM for HD-quality textures would require ~24GB if every texture were 4x the resolution).

With 4K gaming, there seem to currently be as many disadvantages as advantages. Most people are probably better off sticking to gaming at 1080p and 1440p, where current games are designed to be played, and enjoying the higher framerates and responsiveness that come with it. Jumping on the 4K bandwagon this early is liable to be disappointing (unless being able to say that you're playing in 4K is more important than all other factors).

 

[aleshemsky83]

It's going to take longer for the benefits of 4K to reach gaming. It's not as relatively simple as recorded content (ex. movies and TV), where there are fewer variables. Games have only as much detail in their textures as the developers allow, and 4K-quality textures are rather prohibitive right now. Besides the extra work to make all of a game's textures of such high resolution, it would make games too large (they're already 50-100GB with HD-quality textures, and consider that 4K is 4x the resolution of HD) and even today's beefiest GPUs probably couldn't handle it (ex. a game requiring 6GB of GPU RAM for HD-quality textures would require ~24GB if every texture were 4x the resolution).

With 4K gaming, there seem to currently be as many disadvantages as advantages. Most people are probably better off sticking to gaming at 1080p and 1440p, where current games are designed to be played, and enjoying the higher framerates and responsiveness that come with it. Jumping on the 4K bandwagon this early is liable to be disappointing (unless being able to say that you're playing in 4K is more important than all other factors).

While I'm sure thats true and the 4k strides are coming, I still can't help but be annoyed by all the "looks amazing in 4k" comments I saw on the internet when I can now see empirically that it barely makes any difference.

Its not like I'm not trying AAA games, Ive done DOOM Vulkan, Nioh, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, For Honor. Some really impressive games. It just looks like 5% sharper than 1080p. Thats it.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Costco Wholesale Bought this tv. The OS is super sluggisb, which kind of explains the relatively low price, but I'll most likely be using an external device so it's not a huge deal. I'm pretty satisfied with the quality of the display

This is why for my next TV I want a damn non-smart TV, but still a quality TV. I have no need for my TV to have an smart OS.

 

[Pay Carl]

I have to say, I'm playing 4k native games from my PC.

I cannot get over how almost nonexistent the difference between 4k and 1080p is.

What was all the hype about?

How big is your TV? They say you won't be able to notice a difference under 50"

I do feel like 4k is quite overrated. The "upscaling" is non-existent, the difference is so subtle, and there is so few options for 4k content that it is kind of pointless

The difference between TV's in general is marginal too. OLED is really the only technology that will actually make a huge difference in what you watch

 

[Pay Carl]

All cables also max out at 60hz. Even the HD ones. So it's kind of a bottle neck. The human eye also can only see 120hz. They inflate the names like 240 motionflow but it's normally half or just 120hz. It's to get people to buy them.

Yes but it doesn't really matter if the cables can only handle 60HZ, the 120HZ is just your TV processing the image to look smoother

So even if whatever you're watching is only coming in at 60HZ your 120HZ TV will basically add frames in between what it is receiving to make it look smoother

I used to have two TV's set up side by side with Xbox's that my girlfriend and I used to play, and the TV she used had 120HZ and mine was only 60HZ and the difference was pretty noticeable when side by side. That said, if you didn't look at them next to each other you probably couldn't tell

 

[ArchAngel55]

Yes but it doesn't really matter if the cables can only handle 60HZ, the 120HZ is just your TV processing the image to look smoother

So even if whatever you're watching is only coming in at 60HZ your 120HZ TV will basically add frames in between what it is receiving to make it look smoother

I used to have two TV's set up side by side with Xbox's that my girlfriend and I used to play, and the TV she used had 120HZ and mine was only 60HZ and the difference was pretty noticeable when side by side. That said, if you didn't look at them next to each other you probably couldn't tell

I totally agree. My parents bought a 60hz tv and to me it was noticeable because I was used to my 120hz. I was mainly stating it so people don't waste the $ on a 4k HDMI cable.

 

[aleshemsky83]

How big is your TV? They say you won't be able to notice a difference under 50"

I do feel like 4k is quite overrated. The "upscaling" is non-existent, the difference is so subtle, and there is so few options for 4k content that it is kind of pointless

The difference between TV's in general is marginal too. OLED is really the only technology that will actually make a huge difference in what you watch

It's 65 inches and I'm 8-10 feet away.

Like I said, games are like 5% sharper looking and that's it.

4k Netflix on the other hand looks amazing.

Edit: also, the human eye can see much more than 120 fps.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Also, 120 Hz tvs I'm pretty sure are just 60 Hz with motion interpolation. They can't actually take a 60 Hz signal.

Also, cabled do not have an fps limit. They have a bandwidth limit. The limit to an HDMI 1.4 cable (if that's what they're called I can't remember) is 4k30fps, but Nvidia GPUs can do 4k60fps through HDMI 1.4 with compression tricks. At 1080p they can do 240 fps or whatever the equivalent bandwidth is.

Also I'm pretty sure 120 fps tvs are just 60 Hz tvs with interpolation. So a 24 fps signal gets turned into 48. I don't think it can actually hit 120 fps. The 240 fps branded tvs, I do believe those are genuine 120 Hz displays. But I'd have to look that up later.

 

[Pay Carl]

It's 65 inches and I'm 8-10 feet away.

Like I said, games are like 5% sharper looking and that's it.

4k Netflix on the other hand looks amazing.

Edit: also, the human eye can see much more than 120 fps.

Wow well that’s surprising you don’t see much of a difference on a tv that huge

Granted I think you kind of have to look for it, and correct me if I’m wrong but a lot of the 4K content that you can get has to be compressed so much that it’s low quality picture anyways by the time it gets to you. Maybe that explains some of it

 

[Pay Carl]

Also, 120 Hz tvs I'm pretty sure are just 60 Hz with motion interpolation. They can't actually take a 60 Hz signal.

Also, cabled do not have an fps limit. They have a bandwidth limit. The limit to an HDMI 1.4 cable (if that's what they're called I can't remember) is 4k30fps, but Nvidia GPUs can do 4k60fps through HDMI 1.4 with compression tricks. At 1080p they can do 240 fps or whatever the equivalent bandwidth is.

Also I'm pretty sure 120 fps tvs are just 60 Hz tvs with interpolation. So a 24 fps signal gets turned into 48. I don't think it can actually hit 120 fps. The 240 fps branded tvs, I do believe those are genuine 120 Hz displays. But I'd have to look that up later.

Kind of like I said in my other post as far as I understand they insert artificial frames that blend the difference between what the tv is actually receiving to make things look smoother

I think if a TV actually lists itself as 240HZ then it’s 240, although those are extremely rare if any at all left. A lot of them will say like motion rate 240 or something like that and those are usually actually 120 HZ panels but they can make up a fake number to tell you

It’s amazing how intentionally murky TV companies have become to try to trick people

 

[Hammettf2b]

This is why for my next TV I want a damn non-smart TV, but still a quality TV. I have no need for my TV to have an smart OS.

I'm the exact opposite. I wont get a tv without it being a smart tv nowadays.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Wow well that’s surprising you don’t see much of a difference on a tv that huge

Granted I think you kind of have to look for it, and correct me if I’m wrong but a lot of the 4K content that you can get has to be compressed so much that it’s low quality picture anyways by the time it gets to you. Maybe that explains some of it

I'm looking my eyeballs off. Theres hardly any difference.

Atbleast for video games.

 

[Pay Carl]

I'm looking my eyeballs off. Theres hardly any difference.

Atbleast for video games.

That’s pretty disappointing but enlightening

 

[Pay Carl]

I'm the exact opposite. I wont get a tv without it being a smart tv nowadays.

They really don’t make em without anymore

I don’t reallt get why people don’t like them. They’re generally pretty clunky but I find it so annoying to have to use my tv and Xbox remote at night when I want to watch something. Not to mention Xbox doesn’t have a sleep timer so if I put on ESPN it’ll be on all night

The way I look at it the more smart options the better. Covers more bases

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

They really don’t make em without anymore

I don’t reallt get why people don’t like them. They’re generally pretty clunky but I find it so annoying to have to use my tv and Xbox remote at night when I want to watch something. Not to mention Xbox doesn’t have a sleep timer so if I put on ESPN it’ll be on all night

The way I look at it the more smart options the better. Covers more bases

I think you covered it for me. Clunky and unnecessary for me. I have an Apple TV and a PS4 don’t really need a smart tv either.

Never had a smart tv but I’m assuming there might be an option to disable it so you don’t have to use it?

 

[Pay Carl]

I think you covered it for me. Clunky and unnecessary for me. I have an Apple TV and a PS4 don’t really need a smart tv either.

Never had a smart tv but I’m assuming there might be an option to disable it so you don’t have to use it?

Yeah it just is a regular old tv if you choose to ignore the fancy features pretty much

 

[PK Cronin]

This is why for my next TV I want a damn non-smart TV, but still a quality TV. I have no need for my TV to have an smart OS.

I was just reading an interview with someone from Vizio at CES on The Verge. He mentioned how the company makes a lot money on advertisements and data collection after the television is sold to the consumer, so they can afford to lower the price in the store because they'll make up the difference later. Dumb televisions don't allow for any profit after the fact, so they'd actually be more expensive than you think, because they'll make up the difference in the store.

They really don’t make em without anymore

I don’t reallt get why people don’t like them. They’re generally pretty clunky but I find it so annoying to have to use my tv and Xbox remote at night when I want to watch something. Not to mention Xbox doesn’t have a sleep timer so if I put on ESPN it’ll be on all night

The way I look at it the more smart options the better. Covers more bases

I'd prefer to choose my own smart device and OS that is less clunky than the one that comes with the television, and since I already have one I don't need what they're providing.

Couldn't you just put a timer on your television so that turns off, or are you concerned about the Xbox running all night?

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I was just reading an interview with someone from Vizio at CES on The Verge. He mentioned how the company makes a lot money on advertisements and data collection after the television is sold to the consumer, so they can afford to lower the price in the store because they'll make up the difference later. Dumb televisions don't allow for any profit after the fact, so they'd actually be more expensive than you think, because they'll make up the difference in the store.



I'd prefer to choose my own smart device and OS that is less clunky than the one that comes with the television, and since I already have one I don't need what they're providing.

Couldn't you just put a timer on your television so that turns off, or are you concerned about the Xbox running all night?

That makes sense. Buying and selling data is big business.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Please just give me the option to pay a little more...f*** this data selling horseshit.

Not that I've once used my Vizio's smart capabilities.