4K as an option doesn't seem like a bad idea. It's not a fad like 3D, but it's not something people are clamouring for in the way they were when HD appeared.

I'd be really interested in a straw poll of how many forum people have 4k TVs.

I keep thinking about it, but then the faff around HDR, "real" 4k and so on put me off and I spend my money on games instead.

I think once the 1080p/I/720 standard sort of worked itself out and it was 1080p or bust, I was ready to go (the frustrations of my PS3 switching to 720 and me not knowing why aside).

I'm not a £1000 tellie guy, I'm a £2-300. Once I get what I need to buy and that becomes affordable, I'll go for it. But not yet.

If I’m replacing a telly I’ll go for the latest tech I can reasonably afford. But I don’t replace a telly often. I’m probably talking every 10 years or something. The Samsung one I have now is about eight years old and still looks amazing.

Dont know why you bother. I have full HD at 1080p. Cant get better than all the HDs.

I_R wrote:

4K as an option doesn't seem like a bad idea. It's not a fad like 3D, but it's not something people are clamouring for in the way they were when HD appeared.

Yeah, and, speaking from experience, the Bone X was overpowered for non-4K TVs. I was running it through a 1080 TV for a while and the only real bonuses were a slightly sharper image thanks to the anisotropic filtering (I think it was?) and a handful of games offering a 60hz mode. Probably fewer dropped frames as well but nothing massively noticeable.

The thing is these TVs get bigger and bigger and show better detail but my sofa stays the same distance away so I’m hard pressed to see the need. Additionally I feel like the idea of 4K is sexier than actually implementing more wild and wacky ideas into a game. Like out of a choice between straighter lines than now and crazy particles and experimental graphics tech I’ll take the latter every time - raytracing reflections at 1080p seems cooler to me than a less intensive but smoother resolution.

I recently bought a £1000 TV but then my last TV purchase before that was 8 years ago and £650. So i tend to go for the spend lots upfront to make it last longer philosophy.

Unlikely wrote:

I've found the setting to turn off that distracting motion smoothing thing it does. Makes a bit difference.

Where's that mate? i think we both have b8. i haven't had a problem with motion but curious now

By default it was doing something that made everything move unsettlingly smoothly. Sounds like that should have been a good thing but it just made everything look unnatural somehow.

Game mode for games, film mode for everything else. Although I’m Samsung rather than LG, so different settings, obvs.

I’m Panasonic

Kern knows. Panasonic pictures are excellent. The OS probably isn’t the best running on the now defunct Firefox OS but it’s simple and works. Inputs on my set all handle HDR and 4K which means PS4 Pro, Xbox One X and PC can all take advantage of it.

Having done a lot of reading on sites like Av Forums the general consensus is to switch off or reduce a lot of the picture processing.

As for visual differences it is definitely visible if not to the level of jump from SD to HD. But HDR when it works well really is something.

Always wanted one of those. Does it match the action on screen?

Nice. I seem to remember MS were looking into something similar to that but scaled up to full room or something.

It makes a lot of sense as your peripheral vision is blurred anyway and at the extremities is just coloured shapes.

Kernowgaz wrote:

I’m Panasonic