New OLED UHD 4k

Hi, just want to share my experience from the IFA exhibition in Berlin. The Samsung OLED UHD 4k is the best TV I have seen inmy life. The screen have 55 inch. The quality was so sharp and the color so natural and rich. Really the Best TV. Unbelievable. Actually it is a prototype but sure that it will on the market in few months. Price will very high too.

 

I can imagine it must be brilliant. I have now had my Sony 65x900 4k tv for two weeks and it is amazing - feared it may be a gimmick (like 3d) but up scaling of normal HD content is sensational.

TV tech is moving fast - for me B&O is now about speakers - they are outmoded on TV.

The only thing making me disagree with you is the lack of 4K content. I haven't seen the up scaling, but have seen the OLED and UHD/LCD LG and Samsung TVs. With the correct content it is truly amazing, and surely with virtually every major manufacturer and even some budget ones too, the rush to make 4K content must be now be on.

I'm afraid the NG 12-65 could soon be very old hat, and a pricey one too. Panasonic have a 4K plasma in 65 inch just coming out, with the new USB connection thingy too!

Rights ! Nowadays, B&O TVs have technically a delayed train !

 

I to visited the IFA.

 

I wanted to orientate on an new television and i was nearby so i took the time to visit.

 

About the 4k tv,s i saw

I do NOT agree.

 

The color was awful and way off balance.All to overdone in colering.green was "chemical"green for example.

 

When fast moving objects were visible the picture was blurred.

 

I now have (i know way old) an beovision 3 tv but really want something new.

 

I only saw 2 tv,s that had a really good picture.

 

1: Samsung 65"plasma tv .Very color balanced picture good contrast an depth.(best tv,s in the us said an samsung worker there) and

2: and Panasonic 65"plasma same very nice smooth and warm picture both NOT 4k..

 

I think i will wait until b&O brings out a nice priced 65"plasma.I know i heard about the Beovision 12 but 14k is just to much.

 

Does anyone know why b&o did not attend the IFA.

 

I saw Loewe and all the others but missed B&O

Chris Townsend:

The only thing making me disagree with you is the lack of 4K content. I haven't seen the up scaling, but have seen the OLED and UHD/LCD LG and Samsung TVs. With the correct content it is truly amazing, and surely with virtually every major manufacturer and even some budget ones too, the rush to make 4K content must be now be on.

 

 

I'm afraid the NG 12-65 could soon be very old hat, and a pricey one too. Panasonic have a 4K plasma in 65 inch just coming out, with the new USB connection thingy too!

 

 

Sony will have 4k content available.

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1

Sonys 4K Box is for the Usa only NOT the Uk :-( 

Patrick:

 

I to visited the IFA.

 

I wanted to orientate on an new television and i was nearby so i took the time to visit.

 

About the 4k tv,s i saw

I do NOT agree.

 

The color was awful and way off balance.All to overdone in colering.green was "chemical"green for example.

 

When fast moving objects were visible the picture was blurred.

 

I now have (i know way old) an beovision 3 tv but really want something new.

 

I only saw 2 tv,s that had a really good picture.

 

1: Samsung 65"plasma tv .Very color balanced picture good contrast an depth.(best tv,s in the us said an samsung worker there) and

2: and Panasonic 65"plasma same very nice smooth and warm picture both NOT 4k..

 

I think i will wait until b&O brings out a nice priced 65"plasma.I know i heard about the Beovision 12 but 14k is just to much.

 

Does anyone know why b&o did not attend the IFA.

 

I saw Loewe and all the others but missed B&O

Which reinforces what the Imaging Science Foundation says, resolution is nowhere near the most important picture spec. Color accuracy, contrast-black levels, gray scale tracking and color temp, all are more important. I fully expect to see 42 inch 4k sets with truly execrable pictures to be the norm. 

I currently have a VT series 65 inch Panasonic plasma, it is outstanding, and the new ZT panel is supposed to be even better. That may be the Panasonic panel you saw. 

linder:

Chris Townsend:

The only thing making me disagree with you is the lack of 4K content. I haven't seen the up scaling, but have seen the OLED and UHD/LCD LG and Samsung TVs. With the correct content it is truly amazing, and surely with virtually every major manufacturer and even some budget ones too, the rush to make 4K content must be now be on.

I'm afraid the NG 12-65 could soon be very old hat, and a pricey one too. Panasonic have a 4K plasma in 65 inch just coming out, with the new USB connection thingy too!

Sony will have 4k content available.

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1

Interesting set of titles that come "free" with the Sony box.  I can understand how the top of the list could have been filmed/cgi-ed at that resolution, but how does the last one fit ? was it scanned from a high quality print ? or is it going to look as bad as 1930 B/W movies shown on a 1080P ?

http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1:

collection includes:

• The Amazing Spider-Man^™
• Bad Teacher
• The Karate Kid
• The Other Guys
• Battle: Los Angeles
• That's My Boy
• Salt
• Total Recall 2012
• Taxi Driver
• The Bridge on the River Kwai

From flatpanelshd reviewing a Sony UHD TV which I recently saw, and was very impressed by.....

There is a lot of talk about the difference between Full HD and 4K on smaller-size TVs. The 55” version of Sony X9 is not exactly a small TV by normal standards, but it is a small TV by 4K standards. We asked ourselves how to best approach the subject: How could we examine the difference between Full HD and 4K? We would obviously need two versions of the same video clip; 1 in Full HD and 1 in native 4K (not upscaled). Luckily, Sony supplied us with a small USB key used for demonstrations in stores. The USB key stored many of the same video sequences that the 4K media player had stored; only these were in 1920x1080 (Full HD) resolution. We confirmed it with a program called MediaInfo Mac that also told us that the .m2ts container on the USB key had video stored in an AVC codec (profile 4.1) in 1920x1080 resolution at 25 fps. The bitrate was 17.8 Mbps. So it was basically Blu-ray quality in Full HD (downscaled from actual 4K masters).

That gave us a unique opportunity to do a real comparison test of Full HD vs. 4K. We obviously only had one TV so we had to switch between sources (but we could also compare W9 side-by-side with X9). Still, there was no doubt about the difference between Full HD and 4K, no doubt. Detailing was much more impressive in the 4K versions and the wider color gamut used for the real 4K clips showed. We cannot say it more clearly. People who argue that 4K have no effect on 55” TVs are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. There is a very clear difference in detailing even on a 55” TV (from a viewing distance of 2-3 meters). As we moved further away from the TV the difference became less evident, but we still saw a difference from 4-5 meters away. We also think that the wider color gamuts will please people and be an eye-opener for many. The human eye is complex and improved colors definitely increase our perception of details.

Even Grundig launched a UHD TV today at around £3,800. It's a name I haven't heard of for years.

Agree Chris ! Only people who don't see a difference between HD and 4k are blind or not honest. Bang & Olufsen name his last BeoVision 12, New Generation ! It is a Danish joke ! This TV which cost 15.000 euros don't support 4k !

Let me see if I understand this test...they compared 4k content, and down converted to HD content, supplied by the manufacturer pushing 4k, all on a set who's native resolution is 4k to proclaim 4k superior to HD on a smaller seta? Excuse me, but this is the most asinine, bass ackwards "test" I've ever heard of. There are so many problems with this it's hard to list them all. To start with, why not take two sets, ISF calibrated, one 4k and the other HD, look at them with native resolution sources for each and then you might be able to make a comparison that means something. 

This is developing exactly the same way as HD audio, you're blind as opposed to deaf if you don't just swoon over the new thing. I swear,mcritical thinking and skepticism are sorely lacking today. 

I have seen UHD in the flesh so regardless of this articles opinions, the picture is frankly amazing. It is just as impressive as it was going from a blocky pixelated SD freeview to BluRay. Will its first generation technology need maturing, yes of course but its not a coincidence that every TV manufacturer including B&Os panel suppliers, are investing billions to all release UHD TVs.

I'm happy with my 11 as there isn't any UHD readily available(yet), and it's only 46 inches.  But would in want to spend £15,000 today on a 12-65 without at least the option of UHD?

 

 

 

 

yes no doubt uhd the next big thing in tv.

the question is when, at the moment no uhd content as such in the uk cheapest tv is 4000 ponds plus

most people do not have the broadband to handle that amount of data, according to the technical director of sky tv, also not everyone  can have a big tv 55 upwards to get the benefit

its a catch 22 at present as the tv people and film producers  all waiting for prices to come down as they dont feel mr average will pay 4000 pounds for his tv

Sky showed the liverpool v man united match in uhd for members of the technical press and sports writers couple of weeks ago

Im sure bang and olufsen will launch  tv  with  uhd  when there is a market

malcolm 

malcolm:

yes no doubt uhd the next big thing in tv.

the question is when.

From nearly all brands NOW on IFA in Berlin, from B&O in 2020!

well in uk no uhd content so whats the point,also can imagine  when content justifies a purchase,the current uhd tv be out of date

malcolm

malcolm welborn:

well in uk no uhd content so whats the point,also can imagine  when content justifies a purchase,the current uhd tv be out of date

Unfortunately Malcolm, you have this the wrong way around. TV manufacturing tradition dictates the format comes before the content. I had a HD TV long before mainstream HD content or Blu-ray's. Content producers tend to react to possible demand rather invest in the recording and hope there is a big enough audience.

TV manufacturers are desperate to shift enough UHD sets to enourage the likes of Sky to launch UHD content. But without a decent number of UHD sets, Sky is unlikely to start filming and broadcasting in UHD. Once broadcasting starts, the masses then convert (to UHD).

 

Looks like 4k content is on the way:

http://www.whathifi.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-look-set-to-be-official

Actually this whole High Def situation will go on for a long time.  Of course, it is probably true 4k content will be available everywhere in less than two years.  The 2016 Olympics will be broadcast in 4k and nobody wants to be left out of that with an old HD television.

A quick search of the web reveals other plans TV manufacturers have for us in the not too distant future.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/8k-olympics-201309133322.htm

david:

The color was awful and way off balance.All to overdone in colering.green was "chemical"green for example.

 

When fast moving objects were visible the picture was blurred.

Went to the local high volume AV retailer this weekend (JBHiFi).

They had the curved TV OLED but apart from an interesting design it did not jump out of the pack i.e. a barn of monitors.

Then there were two large screens side by side - one an LCD (don't think it was plasma) and the other a 4K.

[I am not sure of the facts as we shooed away the sales people as we did not want to have our arms twisted]

I liked the 4K and my wife hated it - it was playing clips of natural environments e.g. a time lapse scenes Grand Canyon, so there was no chemical green - everything seemed very crisp. my wife thought it was too crisp - complained that it made everything look CGI.

By contrast (lol) the LCD was playing movie clips - and we watched one from a movie I don't know but it was a scene of a steam train ploughing through the platform, concourse, and then front facade of a station like Gare du Nord.  It didn't look CGI (but clearly had to be) as blown up to the 85" scale the scenes soft and fuzzy - especially when compared with the Grand Canyon clip running along side.

The 4K was only AU$9,999.00

And I really do mean "only" because I remember when 1080 40" screens first appeared they had very high starting prices.  By contrast ~AU$10K seems affordable !

elephant:

I liked the 4K and my wife hated it - it was playing clips of natural environments e.g. a time lapse scenes Grand Canyon, so there was no chemical green - everything seemed very crisp. my wife thought it was too crisp - complained that it made everything look CGI.

Well, I would say that a small number of people have a bizarre picture quality obsession which somewhat encourages TV manufacturers to find ways to somehow feed this obsession. They feed it, we want it and it cycles with a never-ending desire.

If you watch a top quality modern Blu-ray on a BV11-55, I can't see how this picture can be bettered. Frankly, it's superb. Yes, an LCD image can be a bit too crisp and a little too fine, but that's only going to be worse with 4K. This is why a lot of people prefer a plasma picture, as it's much smoother and the colours are deeper.

OLED should make more of a difference simply due to the way the individual LEDs are lit. The picture should be more uniform, like an improved version of the locally dimmed BV7-55 MKII, rather than side lit BV11.

I'm still not convinced about the need for a 4K picture, unless you have a huge panel. 1080p is more than enough for 40, 46 and even 55" TVs. It's extremely rare for the average consumer to want a panel larger than 55".

When I saw UHD in the shops 4 months ago it as £20,000, and there was an option of one set.

Today there are 4 sets and an OLED too, with prices around £5-6000. There is a £3,000 Grundig on the way shortly which by all accounts isn't bad at all :-/ humm

I'm always looking for the next big thing, and even though I've recently bought an 11-46, I'd be hard pressed to find an excuse to invest a vast sum in what will always just be an HD set. We are again in an era of AV technology shifting the goal posts. Must be a nightmare for those rubbing the crystal ball in Struer, whilst trying to balance the books too.

Actually, Thinking about this, should "concentional" quality HD panels therefore drop in price, allowing bno to make a complete set for an attractice, albeit, premium price?

Jeff:

Which reinforces what the Imaging Science Foundation says, resolution is nowhere near the most important picture spec. Color accuracy, contrast-black levels, gray scale tracking and color temp, all are more important. I fully expect to see 42 inch 4k sets with truly execrable pictures to be the norm. 

I currently have a VT series 65 inch Panasonic plasma, it is outstanding, and the new ZT panel is supposed to be even better. That may be the Panasonic panel you saw. 

This is SO true!!!

Seems like too many people think that high resolution is the only solution...
It is a bit like saying that music sounds good if you just have lots of treble and bass -forget about the mid-range...

If it is based on the LCD/LED technology you'll never get the natural color or the true black levels/grey scale, etc. etc.
I'd rather look at a Plasma with lower resolution than a LCD with higer resolution. 

And @ Patrick: If you compare with your old BV3, I understand why you prefer the Plasma's. The plasma screens gives the warm, natural colors we were used to from the CRT tv's. OLEDs are close to plasma, when it comes to natural color - so it may be the future. Not LCD.

But until we have big-size OLED screens at a decent price, I will stay with my plasma tv.
I think i can live without 4K for the next couple of years... (or more)
 

I'm stood looking at the Panasonic 65VT65 plasma in Fenwick Newcastle and comparing it to the LG 84LM60v UHD TV. It is like comparing an old black and white CRT to a modern HD set.

I can see why Panasonic are probably not going to bother with plasma after next year.

I understand what you are saying but I would reserve judgement unless you're happy that both TV's were setup/calibrated to try and give the same picture settings - it is very easy to be impressed with the bright, "edge detection" settings of a lot of TV's set to in-store mode, it is much harder to live with the same at home.

It will have side LED back lighting like your BV11 (only worse because they have to shine even further to achieve an even backlight at the centre of the TV) and will likely suffer the same "banding/local backlight" issues you've recently mentioned in your BV11 threads. I think it wise to view these early UHDTV's as technology demonstrators rather than "real" TV's, they will sell very few but the inertia will begin to build toward the second and third generations until they become the mainstream.

My understanding of Panasonic's withdrawal from the plasma market is that they are more expensive to produce than LCD and folk have been convinced that they are "old hat" by the big  producers (who all major in LCD). The last I heard the Panny ZT60 is/was the best TV made to date - it is likely to stay that way until superseded by later generations of OLED TV's (I think that while OLED has the obvious ability to become the best TV technology so far, It is unlikely to get there in the first few attempts).

The low battery symbol has just come on in my crystal ball!!

I'm not sure if they use edge lighting, or the better local dimming. John Lewis have an OLED curved screen apparently! but we don't go in there.

Chris Townsend:

I'm not sure if they use edge lighting, or the better local dimming. John Lewis have an OLED curved screen apparently! but we don't go in there.

In some respects it doesn't really matter - when OLED comes in at the mainstream level and we are back to individual pixel by pixel illumination LCD's will probably disappear altogether.

From what I hear the return rate of OLED is currently huge ie 70%, so the short money is on UHD LCD.

I'm looking forward to the day when OLED is cracked, and you can apply it like wallpaper to your wall.

Chris Townsend:

From what I hear the return rate of OLED is currently huge ie 70%, so the short money is on UHD LCD.

I would say that is almost to be expected! It's a new technology and you have to be an idiot/real techy to splash big money at this stage on either UHDTV or OLED, as I said they are starting further up the TV technology curve than plasma or HDLCD but are both still infant technologies and updated iterations will come thick and fast - both will have birthing issues!

It's not that long since flat panels/TV's had a "minimum defective pixel" specification ..... almost unheard of now!!!

EDIT: of course that should be maximum!!!

Ill be staying well clear of first gen anything, but it makes for interesting viewing doesn't it?

Chris Townsend:

Ill be staying well clear of first gen anything, but it makes for interesting viewing doesn't it?

How's your bedroom TV hunt going??

Chris Townsend:

Ill be staying well clear of first gen anything, but it makes for interesting viewing doesn't it?

...............and what would men speak about if they couldn't argue about football teams, phones, computers, milf's and plasma vs LCD???

Puncher:

The low battery symbol has just come on in my crystal ball!!

I think that should become your signature !

Puncher:

Chris Townsend:

Ill be staying well clear of first gen anything, but it makes for interesting viewing doesn't it?

 

How's your bedroom TV hunt going??

There were some TX42GT50's going cheap in Fenwick, but now they have all gone so i'm resigned to looting the 8-26. Don't know if i could ever get a V1, and if i did it would only be out of some blind daft loyalty

elephant:

Puncher:

The low battery symbol has just come on in my crystal ball!!

I think that should become your signature !

Reply hazy, try again later!