# Thinking of Purchasing Samsung 4K



## Wyannuzzi (Feb 11, 2012)

I am thinking of purchasing a Samsung 4K TV and have a few questions.

Do I have to hook it up as an RVU Client or can I use one of my HR24's? I know if I use the HR24 I won't get 4K content from Directv, but there is not much out there so not much of a concern (right now). 

Advantages/Disadvantage of RVU vs HR24?

If I use the HR24, will the Samsung still upscale the content to "near" 4K?

Using the HR24, is it just a matter of switching the current TV with the new Samsung, or is there other setup that needs to be done?

Is there really much of a difference between up scaling to near 4K and 1080P picture? 

Taking cost out of the picture, and I know this is very subjective, is it worth getting a 4K TV at this time?


----------



## twizt3dkitty (Aug 29, 2009)

I would keep the combo myself. At least until more 4k stuff comes out.. you seem to know the main differences between rvu and an ird. If not that's searchable. The combo is going to keep an additional two tuners on your account. That's a loss unless you add rvu and not replacs. Plus there are some known issues with the general performance of Samsung rvu tvs. 

Yes just switch the tvs and reprogram the remote. Samsung code is going to be 10812 for the rc66.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

1. All TVs upscale to their native resolution. So yes, it will upscale to 4K

2. Plug N play

3. This is very subjective, IMO, yes if you are 4 away. No if you watch TV like everyone else.

4. No

I would not recommend RVU right now.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Upscale, yes; uprez, no, though the picture may appear better for other reasons. 

Worth it now? That's the $2,000 question!  

Please let us know your decision, and if you get it, how it pans out for you. 


Good luck!


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

If you have 25mbps broadband with reasonable data limits, 4k is best directly from the Samsung Smart Hub with Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube. Streaming begins in seconds. Some movies and TV series are on Netflix. All future Netflix TV series are to be in 4k. Amazon Prime has some free movies and you can buy many others. YouTube is also a source of interesting 4k content. All of that is better than using RVU to download VOD from DirecTV.

Upscaling with the Samsung TV is not quite native 4k but it is noticeably sharper than your 1080i from DirecTV and your HR playback. You will enjoy the quick source switching using the Smart Hub and the "Tinkerbell" mouse curser.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

patmurphey said:


> Upscaling with the Samsung TV is not quite native 4k but it is noticeably sharper than your 1080i from DirecTV and your HR playback. You will enjoy the quick source switching using the Smart Hub and the "Tinkerbell" mouse curser.


Upscaling with _anything_ doesn't convert a 1080 signal to a 4K signal. The picture may be sharper, better contrast, better coloring, but no detail is added, no pixels added that aren't copies of adjacent ones.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Upscale, yes; uprez, no, though the picture may appear better for other reasons.
> 
> Worth it now? _*That's the $2,000 question!*_
> 
> ...


That's exactly the difference in price between two Samsungs that I saw side by side. I saw no difference in PQ between the two, one was a 1080p set and the other was a 4K set. I saw no signs of upanything. Both pictures looked identical.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> That's exactly the difference in price between two Samsungs that I saw side by side. I saw no difference in PQ between the two, one was a 1080p set and the other was a 4K set. I saw no signs of upanything. Both pictures looked identical.


You really have to be sure of the source content. And the settings.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You really have to be sure of the source content. And the settings.


Same feed. I checked carefully.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> no pixels added that aren't copies of adjacent ones.


I was pretty much on board until you tossed in this one. Proper upscaling involves a certain amount of interpolation so there should be some differentiation between the quad that represents the original pixel.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> You really have to be sure of the source content. And the settings.


Indeed.

Fact is that there is very limited actual 4K UHD sourced content being used for "demos" at this time. I actually caught one retailer promoting a Samsung 4K UHD TV locally in a store and emphatically insisted they were showing 4K content on it...only to find out (from the Manager), that it was actually upconverted 1080p.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Agree with above

Careful about claims the 4k TVs make 1080 content better. First OTA and almost all SAT and cable is 1080i. While there is some 1080p for download and bluray that is likely not the majority of viewing. So upscaling will not markedly improve what you will see. 
I saw the side by side demos of that at CES and was not impressed. 

But if you are thinking of Samsung 4k the new models are the J series and to be available starting springtime.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Reminds me of how sales people would tout how DVDs were now magically HD because the players were connected to HDTVs and connected with component cables.



> Indeed.
> 
> Fact is that there is very limited actual 4K UHD sourced content being used for "demos" at this time. I actually caught one retailer promoting a Samsung 4K UHD TV locally in a store and emphatically insisted they were showing 4K content on it...only to find out (from the Manager), that it was actually upconverted 1080p.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

David Ortiz said:


> Reminds me of how sales people would tout how DVDs were now magically HD because the players were connected to HDTVs and connected with component cables.


To be fair, stuff like this and hdtvfan001's experience with upscaled HD being called 4K content is 99% ignorance. They aren't trying to screw anyone, they just have no clue.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, not all are. Some are issuing 'facts' out of whole cloth, perhaps not lying through their teeth, but.......
Overall, neither the average big box store salesman nor the average customer has much of a clue about it, nor will they when they pull out the plastic.


----------



## Wyannuzzi (Feb 11, 2012)

Thanks everyone for the input. Don't have to decide for a few months but sounds like I should hold off for a while.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> To be fair, stuff like this and hdtvfan001's experience with upscaled HD being called 4K content is 99% ignorance. They aren't trying to screw anyone, they just have no clue.





Wyannuzzi said:


> Thanks everyone for the input. Don't have to decide for a few months but sounds like I should hold off for a while.


Agree that none of us know intent when people are showing 4K UHD displays with non-4K UHD content...but this is more a case of "buyer beware" that regardless of any intent...misleading presentations can/have been made already.

Like others have said.... a 1080p upconverted 4K UHD display and a 1080p display side by side don't reflect any major difference. When true 4K UHD content is shown, however, the difference is far more apparent...and the larger the display, the more obvious it is to viewers. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to see both scenarios know this to be the case.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Wyannuzzi said:


> Thanks everyone for the input. Don't have to decide for a few months but sounds like I should hold off for a while.


Right now, I don't think that it makes sense to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. If your current TV were broken and the cost of repair made it not worth fixing, I'd certainly consider a 4K TV. I recently had a problem with the DLP chip on my 82" Mitsubishi. The cost to repair it was $285 (including the at home service call). I jumped at the chance to fix my existing set rather than to overpay (in relation to what I will eventually pay when there is sufficient 4K content) for a 4K TV now.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Geez! Upscaling is not 4k, but it makes 1080i better to watch and there is 4k content out there other than DirecTV's VOD. The improvement in my satellite viewing is real with my 4k TV. I am enjoying watching the rest of House Of Cards, and Marco Polo, plus an occasional movie and YouTube video in 4k. If you are a skeptic, it's your loss not mine.

Netflix is $3 a month more, Amazon Prime is a free add on to my shopping subscription (Plus it has many pay movies), and there is a bunch of free stuff on YouTube. What's not to like?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> Geez! Upscaling is not 4k,


Why not?

The TV can only display one "type" of image and that is a 4K image, regardless of the source. That a "true" 4K source looks better than one that was upscaled, that is a totally different concept.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I think it's useful to distinguish between upscaling and uprezzing, as well as calling a picture by its source, not by the capabilities of the display. So, the majority of pictures seen at this time on 4K sets is not 4K.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> I think it's useful to distinguish between upscaling and uprezzing, as well as calling a picture by its source, not by the capabilities of the display. *So, the majority of pictures seen at this time on 4K sets is not 4K. *


It may not be "native" 4K at its core, but what ever is being display in a 4K display, it is 4K


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> It may not be "native" 4K at its core, but what ever is being display in a 4K display, it is 4K


 That's sophistry.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> I think it's useful to distinguish between upscaling and uprezzing, as well as calling a picture by its source, not by the capabilities of the display. So, the majority of pictures seen at this time on 4K sets is not 4K.


Indeed. It makes a difference when viewing the 2 different source formats on a 4K UHD unit.

Anything else is "not exactly" (in the Hertz commercial voice) 4K UHD.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> That's sophistry.


Perhaps you misunderstanding of the technology is. What is 4K? 4K is a picture that has a resolution of 3840 x 2160. If you play you grandmothers VCR on a 4K TV and it play on stretch mode, is being play back on 4K.

Just because of your ignorance of technology, it does not make a true statement "sophistry". "sophistry" is YOUR reply to my comment.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Indeed. It makes a difference when viewing the 2 different source formats on a 4K UHD unit.
> 
> Anything else is "not exactly" (in the Hertz commercial voice) 4K UHD.


Indeed there is a difference. As the picture in not being "artificially" blown up to filled the required pixels. However is still a 4K picture


----------



## MarkN (Jul 13, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> Reminds me of how sales people would tout how DVDs were now magically HD because the players were connected to HDTVs and connected with component cables.
> 
> Well said


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Perhaps you misunderstanding of the technology is. What is 4K? 4K is a picture that has a resolution of 3840 x 2160. If you play you grandmothers VCR on a 4K TV and it play on stretch mode, is being play back on 4K.
> 
> Just because of your ignorance of technology, it does not make a true statement "sophistry". "sophistry" is YOUR reply to my comment.


We are talking two different things. At least I am.

Of course when one views something on a 4K set, he sees approximately 4,000 pixels. But if the source material is far less than that, it isn't true 4K. Pretty basic, and not a matter of ignorance in technology, but perhaps ignorance of terms or concepts.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

peds48 said:


> Why not?
> 
> The TV can only display one "type" of image and that is a 4K image, regardless of the source. That a "true" 4K source looks better than one that was upscaled, that is a totally different concept.





Laxguy said:


> We are talking two different things. At least I am.
> 
> Of course when one views something on a 4K set, he sees approximately 4,000 pixels. But if the source material is far less than that,* it isn't true 4K.* Pretty basic, and not a matter of ignorance in technology, but perhaps ignorance of terms or concepts.


And I am not saying otherwise. My reply that you decided to call "sophistry" was the the post quoted above and is true. That a "true" 4K source produces a better picture then one is scaled from an "inferior" resolution is not a debate. But to call the inferior not being 4K is misleading or "sophistry". 4K is just the amount of pixels that a display has, what 4K is not is a "measuring picture quality standard"


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> We are talking two different things. At least I am.
> 
> Of course when one views something on a 4K set, *he sees approximately 4,000 pixels*.


Is actually 8 million plus pixels


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

patmurphey said:


> Geez! Upscaling is not 4k, ...





peds48 said:


> Why not?
> 
> The TV can only display one "type" of image and that is a 4K image, regardless of the source...


Yeah, all the pixels are lit, but they are interpolated by the TV. The source does not provide the 1 for 1 pixels. Because it's an approximation, it is not 4k without the adjective "upscaled"..


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Wyannuzzi said:


> Thanks everyone for the input. Don't have to decide for a few months but sounds like I should hold off for a while.


That was the conclusion most of us reached a while ago. Wise choice, I think. Not that I'd mind having one to play with right now.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Is actually 8 million plus pixels


Quite right. Sloppy editing on my part.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> Yeah, all the pixels are lit, but they are interpolated by the TV. The source does not provide the 1 for 1 pixels. Because it's an approximation, it is not 4k without the adjective "upscaled"..


You can call it however you want, but any content display on a 4K display is 4K


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> You can call it however you want, but any content display on a 4K display is 4K


You miss the point.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

And the circle continues !! . . .


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This is a sad argument. For most people... 

When they bought a Hi Definition set they thought they where getting Hi Definition. When they found out they need a source for Hi Definition then they understood what Hi Definition really was.

So they really where calling it Hi Definition because they thought the source was Hi Definition. 

The same principal applies here. The majority of people will think the picture they are seeing is true 4k not something upscaled when they call it 4k. 

And if you want to get technical, if it's a simple scale system then I will easily argue it's still not a 4k because if it takes four exact pixels to make what would be one pixel on a Hi Definition set in both size and shape then it is by default no different than a Hi Definition set in terms of how much info per square inch.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> This is a sad argument. For most people...
> 
> When they bought a Hi Definition set they thought they where getting Hi Definition. When they found out they need a source for Hi Definition then they understood what Hi Definition really was.
> 
> ...


Pretty much sums it up.

It's either 4K content feeding a 4K UHD TV...or a wannabe something else.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Perhaps you misunderstanding of the technology is. What is 4K? 4K is a picture that has a resolution of 3840 x 2160. If you play you grandmothers VCR on a 4K TV and it play on stretch mode, is being play back on 4K.
> 
> Just because of your ignorance of technology, it does not make a true statement "sophistry". "sophistry" is YOUR reply to my comment.


You're making me laugh. I'm so ignorant that I didn't know that when I tune to an SD channel, I'm watching HD on my 1080 set.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> You're making me laugh. I'm so ignorant that I didn't know that when I tune to an SD channel, I'm watching HD on my 1080 set.


My MIL watched her Vizio HD TV for a couple years before my wife discovered it was being fed with a cable box that wasn't capable of HD. All that time she was positive she was watching HD TV.

I think I understand what Peds is talking about, he just has to explain his point more clearly.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I fixed several friends setups so their HDTV received HD. I'm sure there are still millions of people who think they are watching HD but are using SD STBs, having HD fed in a way that's either downscaled in the STB or using cabling that doesn't permit HD.

I'll bet a lot of people who have bought a 4K TV think they're watching in 4K now...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> You can call it however you want, but any content display on a 4K display is 4K


Technically, 4K is 4096x2160 according to the Digital Cinema Initiatives. If you buy a 4K movie camera, that's what you'll get.

The TV version is NOT 4K so the Consumer Electronics Association declared on October 17th, 2012 that they would call it Ultra High Definition or Ultra HD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television

Madison Avenue is quite adept at taking things and using the wrong terminology to describe it. Similar to 4K abuse is hard drive sizing. A 1TB hard drive isn't 1.099511628×10¹² bytes (1024^4) but it has become, by common misuse, 1 trillion bytes. They convinced the community to change their unit of measure to one that looked better. Tape drives and cartridges originally stated their capacities in bytes but when the mini tapes came out, the scale was changed to half of the old scale. This was justified by the theory that you could get 50% compression on any given data and that would double the capacity. The reality was that a 20MB tape had only 10MB of storage space.

If you accept that 1440x1080 isn't Full HD, you must also accept that 3840x2160 isn't 4K as it isn't 4096 (or even 4000).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I'll bet a lot of people who have bought a 4K TV think they're watching in 4K now...


If they perceive that it looks better, should they still be disappointed?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> If they perceive that it looks better, should they still be disappointed?


My MIL was thrilled with her HD Vizio on the SD cable box.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> If they perceive that it looks better, should they still be disappointed?


Much of that is expectation. They just spend $1500 on a new TV which they're told is better, so they'll decide it looks better even if it is identical. Placebo effect is a very powerful thing. Just look at any audiophile who has replaced their speaker cables with $500 oxygen free cables - they'll claim to hear all sorts of improvements in the sound and make up all sorts of crazy reasons why since physics says it makes no difference. If they felt there was no improvement they'd have to admit to themselves they just wasted $500.

This is why audiophiles will never agree when you suggest double blind listening tests


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I'll bet a lot of people who have bought a 4K TV think they're watching in 4K now...


I'll bet a lot of people who have bought a 4K TV actually think they're going to be able to watch 4K *ever*. If your TV is not HDCP 2.2, the only 4K you'll EVER be able to watch is the streaming that your TV supports natively (i.e. Netflix, Amazon, etc.). Majority of 4K TVs in the wild are not HDCP 2.2. 4K over HDMI is going to need HDCP 2.2 through the entire device chain. HDCP 2.2 implies HDMI 2.0. HDMI 2.0 in the wild right now isn't "real" HDMI 2.0, so they're screwed on that front too. Time for a new 4K TV.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> If you accept that 1440x1080 isn't Full HD, you must also accept that 3840x2160 isn't 4K as it isn't 4096 (or even 4000).


OK, if you so say.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The difference between 1440x1080 "HD Lite" versus 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 "4K" versus 4096x2160 is that no network is broadcasting 1440x1080. They provide HD in 1280x720 or 1920x1080 only. When "4K" broadcasts begin, no network will broadcast 4096x2160, they'll broadcast 3840x2160, because that's the resolution of the TVs people will own.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> You're making me laugh. I'm so ignorant that I didn't know that when I tune to an SD channel, I'm watching HD on my 1080 set.


It may not be full HD, but the picture is def 1080 if is filling your entire display. Read about *native resolution*. Wether it makes laugh or not, your 1080p TV can only display 1080p, even from SD channels. Yeap.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Context is key. To me it was clear from the beginning of the comments that started the latest argument (to paraphrase, that there are people who believe they are watching 4K when in fact they aren't), that this was a reference to the *source* of the picture, not what image the TV can produce. Yet the argument continues...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> It may not be full HD, but the picture is def 1080 if is filling your entire display. Read about *native resolution*. Wether it makes laugh or not, your 1080p TV can only display 1080p, even from SD channels. Yeap.


You keep saying this as if there really was a point to that. Most people watching SD on an HD set would not say "that's a 1080 picture". And, yes, I can count pixels.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Well, technically, Peds



peds48 said:


> It may not be full HD, but the picture is def 1080 if is filling your entire display. Read about *native resolution*. Wether it makes laugh or not, your 1080p TV can only display 1080p, even from SD channels. Yeap.


Ah, but it doesn't .

Up converted SD content *doesn't* fill your entire 1080P screen. So, by *YOUR* definition, it's not HD. You know, _technically ._ Up converted SD content is generally going to be pillar boxed. That's not filling the entire screen. Those pillars are added by either the playback device or the TV depending on how you have things set up. In fact, up converted SD content could have pillars AND letter boxing to make things even worse.

Also, by *YOUR* definition, a 2.35 Blu-ray isn't HD because that doesn't fill the entire screen either. It's going to have letter boxing. _Technically ._

A couple of years ago, I posted a funny screen cap of a program, I think it was on The Military Channel that was pillared AND letter boxed and then that entire mess was letter boxed again, so it ended up filling up like 25% of the screen or so. That wouldn't even qualify as SD by the "how much of the screen is filled" definition.

I mean, no non-naïve person who understands native resolution is going to consider up scaled SD content to be HD by any definition. They would of course consider 2.35 content to be HD though.

Also, we need to start a 10 page argument about what idiots who stretch SD content are watching... technically .


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, technically, Peds
> 
> Ah, but it doesn't .
> 
> Up converted SD content *doesn't* fill your entire 1080P screen.


Hence the 'IF"on my post. Let me refresh your short mind.... "It may not be full HD, but the picture is def 1080 *if* is filling your entire display"


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Also, by *YOUR* definition, a 2.35 Blu-ray isn't HD because that doesn't fill the entire screen either. It's going to have letter boxing. _Technically ._


Resolution is not defined by pictured size,, but rather pixel count.

From the Wiki



> *The native resolution of a LCD, LCoS or other flat panel display refers to its single fixed resolution*. As an LCD display consists of a fixed raster, it cannot change resolution to match the signal being displayed as a CRT monitor can, meaning that optimal display quality can be reached only when the signal input matches the native resolution. *An image where the number of pixels is the same as in the image source and where the pixels are perfectly aligned to the pixels in the source is said to be pixel perfect.*[1]





> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> You keep saying this as if there really was a point to that.


Apparently there is a point, as everyone keeps arguing with the facts.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You seem to insist on calling a scaled image the same thing as a native image on a fixed pixel display. Thats disenguous to say that to anyone who doesn't fully understand the difference because it makes it sound like they are watching hd programming when they are not. Hd programming is somethign that is broadcast natively in a hd format. It's much better to be less vague about it and say that hd displays will scale non hd stuff to make it show on the screen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Up converted SD content *doesn't* fill your entire 1080P screen. So, by *YOUR* definition, it's not HD. You know, _technically ._ Up converted SD content is generally going to be pillar boxed. That's not filling the entire screen. Those pillars are added by either the playback device or the TV depending on how you have things set up. In fact, up converted SD content could have pillars AND letter boxing to make things even worse.


It is only pillar boxed if you have things configured that way. Most TVs default to stretching an SD picture to fill the screen.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> You seem to insist on calling a scaled image the same thing as a native image on a fixed pixel display. .


No I insist on saying that that an image on a fixed pixel display has the same amount of pixels regardless of said image native pixel count. Some are upscaled or not pixel perfect, others are pixel perfect or native. But regardless both have the same pixel count. Debating this is moot.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> No I insist on saying that that an image on a fixed pixel display has the same amount of pixels regardless of said image native pixel count. Some are upscaled or not pixel perfect, others are pixel perfect or native. But regardless both have the same pixel count. Debating this is moot.


More like a waste of time; no one is debating what you write above.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

peds48 said:


> No I insist on saying that that an image on a fixed pixel display has the same amount of pixels regardless of said image native pixel count. Some are upscaled or not pixel perfect, others are pixel perfect or native. But regardless both have the same pixel count. Debating this is moot.


That's interesting, but does not allow for terms to describe the difference between upconverted HD and native UHD displayed on a 4k (UHD)TV. They are NOT the same just because of pixel count. Consider how the terms SD, HD lite, 720p,1080i and 1080p are used to describe content that has clearly different appearance when scaled to a 1080p TV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> More like a waste of time; no one is debating what you write above.


Then I guess you missed out of the discussion


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> That's interesting, but does not allow for terms to describe the difference between upconverted HD and native UHD displayed on a 4k (UHD)TV. They are NOT the same just because of pixel count. Consider how the terms SD, HD lite, 720p,1080i and 1080p are used to describe content that has clearly different appearance when scaled to a 1080p TV.


So I guess you are not laughing anymore.... !rolling

I never said the "looks" of the picture was the same. All I have been saying is that a 4K TV will ALWAYS display a 4K picture regardless of source, weather upscaled or pixel perfect.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> Consider how the terms SD, HD lite, 720p,1080i and *1080p* are used to describe content that has clearly different appearance when *scaled* to a *1080p TV*.


Now, to quote you, "you are making me laugh" a 1080p picture is not upscaled when is displayed on a 1080p display. That is a pixel perfect picture !rolling


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Now, to quote you, "you are making me laugh" a 1080p picture is not upscaled when is displayed on a 1080p display. That is a pixel perfect picture !rolling


You are really stretching it just to be insulting.

Why???


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> You are really stretching it just to be insulting.
> 
> Why???


Nope, not at all. That simply drove my point home!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

peds48 said:


> No I insist on saying that that an image on a fixed pixel display has the same amount of pixels regardless of said image native pixel count. Some are upscaled or not pixel perfect, others are pixel perfect or native. But regardless both have the same pixel count.


No one is contesting this. As I pointed out above, context is key here. It seems you missed earlier that the discussion was about how folks may incorrectly perceive the *source *to be 4K simply because it was viewed on 4K TV. Nothing more, nothing less. The argument about "everything is 4K on a 4K TV" in no way serves the key point of that earlier discussion and led us on this wild detour...

Debating this is moot.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> It may not be full HD, but the picture is def 1080 if is filling your entire display. Read about *native resolution*. Wether it makes laugh or not, your 1080p TV can only display 1080p, even from SD channels. Yeap.


You're right, I think, you're just not explaining it well. I can't do any better either.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Context is key. To me it was clear from the beginning of the comments that started the latest argument (to paraphrase, that there are people who believe they are watching 4K when in fact they aren't), that this was a reference to the *source* of the picture, not what image the TV can produce. Yet the argument continues...


Ahh, this will get beaten to death until standards all across the board are agreed upon and put in place. Having a company tell you what brand of TV you have to buy in order to get a limited amount of PPV movies isn't gonna sit well with a lot of people.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You keep saying this as if there really was a point to that._* Most people*_ watching SD on an HD set would not say "that's a 1080 picture". And, yes, I can count pixels.


Sadly, most people aren't really that aware of what seems obvious to us.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You seem to insist on calling a scaled image the same thing as a native image on a fixed pixel display. Thats disenguous to say that to anyone who doesn't fully understand the difference because it makes it sound like they are watching hd programming when they are not. Hd programming is somethign that is broadcast natively in a hd format. It's much better to be less vague about it and say that hd displays will scale non hd stuff to make it show on the screen.


It is hard to explain. Remember me writing about an argument on another forum about upscaling BD players? Those "experts" said standard DVDs could not be upscaled to 1080p. The argument went on and on until I asked them if they'd ever used or owned an upscaler. Both said they did not, but the metrics say...that's when I checked out of that forum.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You are really stretching it just to be insulting.
> 
> Why???


Frustration?

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Drew2k said:


> No one is contesting this. As I pointed out above, context is key here. It seems you missed earlier that the discussion was about how folks may incorrectly perceive the *source *to be 4K simply because it was viewed on 4K TV. Nothing more, nothing less. The argument about "everything is 4K on a 4K TV" in no way serves the key point of that earlier discussion and led us on this wild detour...
> 
> Debating this is moot.


I did not missed anything, most likely it was you who did. my comments were taking out of context and it went off from there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

[youtubehd]watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0[/youtubehd]


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

New 4K movie "DEAD MAN TALKING" Download Caution watch your cap limit


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

WestDC said:


> New 4K movie "DEAD MAN TALKING" Download Caution watch your cap limit


Interesting! A subtle comment on the roundabout "discussion" over not very much at all?


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

WestDC said:


> New 4K movie "DEAD MAN TALKING" Download Caution watch your cap limit


I believe the content is sent to the receiver via satellite and recorded on the HDD form viewing. There should be no worries about data caps.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Whoopee! :grin: Everything I'm watching on my 4k TV is 4k. I don't have to wait until 4k is provided by cable, satellite, broadcasters, and DVD and BluRay players. Here I thought it was only streaming now.

I'm still laughing (at myself for not understanding how good my TV is).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> Whoopee! :grin: Everything I'm watching on my 4k TV is 4k. I don't have to wait until 4k is provided by cable, satellite, broadcasters, and DVD and BluRay players. Here I thought it was only streaming now.
> 
> I'm still laughing (at myself for not understanding how good my TV is).


So jealous! Your Smokey And The Bandit BetaMax tape must look amazing!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has already been discussed. I thought this article might be of interest to anyone who might be concerned:



> *Samsung Smart TVs will listen to, capture and transmit your private conversations, company warns*
> 
> If you have a Samsung Smart TV with voice recognition in your lounge room, it might be worth making sure the feature's deactivated and a piece of tape is over the microphone before you make any private or sensitive statements.
> 
> ...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> Whoopee! :grin: Everything I'm watching on my 4k TV is 4k. I don't have to wait until 4k is provided by cable, satellite, broadcasters, and DVD and BluRay players. Here I thought it was only streaming now.
> 
> I'm still laughing (at myself for not understanding how good my TV is).


You might want to wait if you want a pixel perfect picture on your 4K display. Otherwise enjoy your 4K (non pixel perfect) shows on your brand new display.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Steve said:


> Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has already been discussed. I thought this article might be of interest to anyone who might be concerned:


WOW, that is intrusive...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> WOW, that is intrusive...


I wonder what the TV says when you say "OMG, I just realized I paid $20 to watch Ghostbusters in 4K!" Probably "LOL" haha...

Actually, this article is kinda BS. Its not like the TV is in voice recognition mode 24/7. You have to put it in that mode and a big mic icon appears on the screen. But if you're on a date watching a movie and you accidently roll over the remote and put the TV in VM mode... that's probably going up on youtube !rolling .


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> You might want to wait if you want a pixel perfect picture on your 4K display. Otherwise enjoy your 4K (non pixel perfect) shows on your brand new display.


I hear a loud whooshing sound from the room next door........

But I like the term "pixel perfect"!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> I hear a loud whooshing sound from the room next door........
> 
> But I like the term "pixel perfect"!


Yeap, that was the sound of an email being sent to you describing how 4K actually works..... !rolling


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Updated one connect box coming for 2014 4k samsung. Looks like new ports will be available.

http://www.cnet.com/news/tizen-wont-be-coming-to-samsungs-older-smart-tvs-ces-2015/

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Haven't read the whole thread yet, so forgive me if this has already been discussed. I thought this article might be of interest to anyone who might be concerned:


I read that too. Disconcerting, but not to the point where I wouldn't buy a Samsung TV.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Samsung has issued a correction for these claims reported in the press, stating that it only listens when you activate some button on your remote.

What is more worrisome are other clauses about Samsung's data collection. They can tell what you are watching at all times and send that information back to home base. If you've ever used Shazam on your smartphone to identify a song, you know how well it works, and how it has integration with a lot of TV shows and even ads. Similar audio or video fingerprinting technology would let your TV know what you are watching even if it is coming through HDMI1 or whatever. It can monitor the video coming from your Genie and know what show you're watching, whether you skip commercials or not, if you skip past part of the program and rewind and watch other parts twice, etc.

This isn't a Samsung problem alone though, this is a problem with ALL smart TVs. Now maybe it doesn't matter as our DVRs are gathering the same info, but the TV is in a unique place to monitor everything you are watching. It can tell when you watch Directv, when you watch Hulu off your Apple TV, Netflix off your PS4, what video games you're playing and for how long, etc. Don't think for a second that they don't collect this info, or aren't at least working towards it if they don't have it working yet. This data would be extremely valuable to advertisers, and these companies are going to sell you out in any way they can since most people don't even know this kind of thing can happen. Or they know but have become resigned to it after having Google collect and sell off so much data about their online and smartphone habits.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Is it really worrisome? You're going to get ads anywhere in most cases, so why not let them be somewhat tailored to you? 

And I hate Shazam, will never use it. Those bas****s!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

So XBox One has always on listening, and so does the new Amazon dedicated music player (some hardware device, I forget what it's called) yet neither of these products were mentioned in the article bout Samsung's always on listening. 

I have the Amazon Fire and I know you have to press a button on that to get it to listen, and I always thought the Samsung (and LG, which I think also has a listening remote) worked the same. 

Where is the due diligence in reporting today?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Samsung has issued a correction for these claims reported in the press, stating that it only listens when you activate some button on your remote.


Sounds like you can either control the TV by voice and have it relay anything else you might say to third parties, or not use the feature at all?

How about only listen for control commands and not relay any audio to anyone, unless you're using Skype or some other app you allow to access the microphone? Just my .02.

*EDITED TO ADD:* If it only listens _while_ you're pressing the button on the remote, I could live with that. If it's a toggle, then there's a problem, IMHO.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> So XBox One has always on listening


Curious, does the X-Box TOS state Microsoft can send any audio overheard in your home to any third-party? I think that's what the Samsung TOS states.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drew2k said:


> So XBox One has always on listening, and so does the new Amazon dedicated music player (some hardware device, I forget what it's called) yet neither of these products were mentioned in the article bout Samsung's always on listening.
> 
> I have the Amazon Fire and I know you have to press a button on that to get it to listen, and I always thought the Samsung (and LG, which I think also has a listening remote) worked the same.
> 
> Where is the due diligence in reporting today?


There were plenty of articles a while back about the Xbox's mic being always on, and Kinect as well. The media is always on to the next controversy and forgets about the one before it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Is it really worrisome? You're going to get ads anywhere in most cases, so why not let them be somewhat tailored to you?


Ads that are tailored to you are more valuable to the ad seller, which gives them an incentive to deliver an increased number of ads to you.

If ads were always targeted exactly wrong (Mercedes ads to teenagers, liquor ads to Muslims, Katy Perry concert ads to 80 year olds, etc.) no one would advertise because they would get no return from it. The better targeted ads are, the more advertisers are willing to spend, the greater the incentive to deliver an increased number of ads. Simple supply and demand - when demand for something is greater the price goes up, causing the supply to increase.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Steve said:


> Curious, does the X-Box TOS state Microsoft can send any audio overheard in your home to any third-party? I think that's what the Samsung TOS states.


Honestly, I can't recall Steve. It's been a long time since I looked into it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Samsung is also inserting their own ads when you use it to stream. I remember hearing something about this last year but it never made the popular because Samsung was still everyone's darling. With last weekend's controversy this business from last year is coming back to haunt them.

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-smart-tvs-forcing-ads-into-video-streaming-apps/

I'm sure if Samsung isn't the only smart TV maker doing this, it is only because the other ones haven't rolled out this feature yet. Everyone still looking forward to that 4K Samsung smart TV? Yeah, there is apparently a way to disable it, but there's nothing stopping them from removing the ability to disable it whenever they feel like it. What a greedy slimy company trying to use it to push ads in your face when you've already paid them for the product!

This is why I have zero interest in a smart TV, and my interest declines further every time I hear about stuff like this. I don't want "app" functionality into a TV or cable/satellite STB, an Apple TV or Roku would be much better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Most TVs default to stretching an SD picture to fill the screen.


Stretching implies that aspect ratio is lost. Scaling is surely a more accurate term.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900, on 07 Feb 2015 - 8:47 PM, said:



slice1900 said:


> Most TVs default to stretching an SD picture to fill the screen.





harsh said:


> Stretching implies that aspect ratio is lost. Scaling is surely a more accurate term.


Most TVs are 16:9. The chief way an SD picture can fill the screen is via stretching. It could be way over scanned, via scaling, with large amounts of the top and bottom cut off.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Most TVs are 16:9. The chief way an SD picture can fill the screen is via stretching. It could be way over scanned, via scaling, with large amounts of the top and bottom cut off.


slice1900's claim that TVs default to stretching simply isn't true. TVs, monitors and projectors display the SD image as 4:3 unless the luser changes it to some other aspect.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

peds48 said:


> You might want to wait if you want a pixel perfect picture on your 4K display. Otherwise enjoy your 4K (non pixel perfect) shows on your brand new display.


 
You haven't heard of Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube???


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> slice1900's claim that TVs default to stretching simply isn't true. TVs, monitors and projectors display the SD image as 4:3 unless the luser changes it to some other aspect.


I doubt that, but that wasn't what my correction was about: "Stretching implies that aspect ratio is lost. Scaling is surely a more accurate term." When one stretches, one loses the OAR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Samsung is also inserting their own ads when you use it to stream. I remember hearing something about this last year but it never made the popular because Samsung was still everyone's darling. With last weekend's controversy this business from last year is coming back to haunt them.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-smart-tvs-forcing-ads-into-video-streaming-apps/
> 
> ...


I've never seen any reason for the smart TVs to exist. I don't use mine in that mode at all. All I want from a TV is a good screen, no speakers, no antenna connection, and an HDMI connection.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> slice1900's claim that TVs default to stretching simply isn't true. TVs, monitors and projectors display the SD image as 4:3 unless the luser changes it to some other aspect.


Yeah, none of my plasmas stretch anything. Not that I watch anything in SD.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

My experience is that plasmas default to native 4:3 (no stretch) while LCDs default to stretching 4:3, though it may depend on the model. Probably because the plasmas and higher end LCDs are sold to more discriminating buyers who would prefer the aspect ratio be preserved, while the low end LCDs would be sold to buyers who would call the support line and complain that their TV is defective when it didn't stretch automatically


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> My experience is that plasmas default to native 4:3 (no stretch) while LCDs default to stretching 4:3, though it may depend on the model. Probably because the plasmas and higher end LCDs are sold to more discriminating buyers who would prefer the aspect ratio be preserved, while the low end LCDs would be sold to buyers who would call the support line and complain that their TV is defective when it didn't stretch automatically


Hmmmm. That seems a bit elitist, but I can't disagree, either!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> My experience is that plasmas default to native 4:3 (no stretch) while LCDs default to stretching 4:3, though it may depend on the model. Probably because the plasmas and higher end LCDs are sold to more discriminating buyers who would prefer the aspect ratio be preserved, while the low end LCDs would be sold to buyers who would call the support line and complain that their TV is defective when it didn't stretch automatically


Honestly, I don't even remember how I set them up. You might/probably have a point there.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Hmmmm. _*That seems a bit elitist*_, but I can't disagree, either!


Yup. But I think he's right.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

patmurphey said:


> You haven't heard of Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube???


Again, it seems you love to take things out of context to fit your needs. Here is what is what I was replying to



> patmurphey, on 09 Feb 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:
> 
> Whoopee! :grin: Everything I'm watching on my 4k TV is 4k. I don't have to wait until 4k is provided by cable, satellite, broadcasters, and DVD and BluRay players. Here I thought it was only streaming now.I'm still laughing (at myself for not understanding how good my TV is).





> You might want to wait if you want a pixel perfect picture on your 4K display. Otherwise enjoy your 4K (non pixel perfect) shows on your brand new display.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

We will have to hear from Murph, but a more sardonic reply I have yet to see.... Whoosh!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Rich said:


> I've never seen any reason for the smart TVs to exist. I don't use mine in that mode at all. All I want from a TV is a good screen, no speakers, no antenna connection, and an HDMI connection.
> 
> Rich


What about TV providers eventually having all their channels on an APP that the Smart TV would have? Then you wouldn't need an HDMI connection. The Smart HDTV would become the HD Receiver. However I am not sure how the audio difference would be over Ethernet vs HDMI?


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've never seen any reason for the smart TVs to exist. I don't use mine in that mode at all. All I want from a TV is a good screen, no speakers, no antenna connection, and an HDMI connection.
> 
> Rich


For me, it's the best way to stream, the best source of UHD at present, and a way to mirror apps from my phone. For example, browsing weather is easier with my phone's Intellicast app and the Samsung "Tinkerbell" cursor than any satellite offering. There are many other features that I don't use. I don't need a Roku any more - the TV is faster and more capable and UHD is not available through HDMI, yet.

(Don't tell anyone, but I can watch pixel for pixel UHD programs on it.) :rolling:


----------



## Wyannuzzi (Feb 11, 2012)

Well I am ready to purchase the new TV and am pretty sure I am going 4K. These are the four set I am looking at and would appreciate any assistance from the experts on this site of the pros and cons of each and which they would purchase if they were in my shoes. Also, if there are any sets that you may think would be a better fit, $6500 top price and minimum 78 inch screen, please suggest away.

Thanks

Samsung UN78HU9000FXZA $6000.00
Samsung UN78JU7500FXZA $6000.00
Sony XBR79X900B $6500.00
Sony XBR75X850C $5000.00
Vizio M80-C3 $4000.00


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

I'm watching CNN right now on my Samsung 65" JS9000. It's a really beautiful picture. The set cost me $5k, though it's come down a bit since I bought it. I see that you're looking at 75" or larger, and the cost of that large a display for one of Samsung's SUHD models might be prohibitive. (I think I saw $15k for the 78" JS9500 -- whew!)

Here are my guesses about what make the JS9000 picture so good when displaying DirecTV HD channels, in case that is any help to you in deciding. But first, I'll mention that a bad feature of this TV is poor off-axis viewing. From way to the side, or standing up and looking down at the screen, the picture is not very good at all.

The display panel has 10-bit color depth, as compared with the 8-bit depth of most TVs. Color gradients over surfaces are smoother, giving objects a more solid appearance.

It has brighter colors. It's said to be HDR ready, and it's peak white number is 600 nits. (The top of the line JS9500 has 1000 nits.)

It can show more saturated colors. It's claimed to cover 92% of the cinematic DCI-P3 standard spectrum.

It probably has lots of processing power -- perhaps that's why it does a good job of upconverting from 1080i to 4k. Samsung says it has an "octacore" processor.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

GregLee said:


> But first, I'll mention that a bad feature of this TV is poor off-axis viewing. From way to the side, or standing up and looking down at the screen, the picture is not very good at all.


I concur. I bought the JS9500 and love many things about it, but as you note, the picture tends to wash out a bit when you stand up and look down at the TV or from the sides.

I also dislike quite a few choices made in the interface (ex: it shows all of my networked devices in the Source menu with no option to hide them; it hides the volume and menu controls from the remote pointer when you are looking at anything other than TV or HDMI, AV inputs (ex: USB, Netflix, Youtube, network content); it doesn't allow you to rearrange pinned items in SmartHub or My Apps; HDMI-CEC is crap) but really love the picture quality, and I decided that picture quality outweighs a few inconveniences in the interface.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> the picture quality


Some of us formed the habit of turning down the sharpness control on previous TVs because of the unnatural edges it made. It works better on this TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Wyannuzzi said:


> Well I am ready to purchase the new TV and am pretty sure I am going 4K.


If you don't need to upgrade, there are surely a couple of major innovations on the horizon. I'd wait at least until UHD disc players and other UHD STBs are commonly evaluated against UHD televisions.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> What about TV providers eventually having all their channels on an APP that the Smart TV would have? Then you wouldn't need an HDMI connection. The Smart HDTV would become the HD Receiver. _*However I am not sure how the audio difference would be over Ethernet vs HDMI?*_


Shouldn't matter if you're using an AVR system. Just an optical line out from the TV to the AVR. I thought I'd be able to do that with my Smart Panny plasma, but all I can get out of the TV is stereo sound which means the AVR puts the same sound on the back speakers as the front speakers have. In other words, the damn thing doesn't have a 5.1 port for optical lines.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> For me, it's the best way to stream, the best source of UHD at present, and a way to mirror apps from my phone. For example, browsing weather is easier with my phone's Intellicast app and the Samsung "Tinkerbell" cursor than any satellite offering. There are many other features that I don't use. I don't need a Roku any more - the TV is faster and more capable and UHD is not available through HDMI, yet.
> 
> (Don't tell anyone, but I can watch pixel for pixel UHD programs on it.) :rolling:


I've got a room with a 1080p 42" plasma. I sit about 5 feet away from it. The only time I use D* in that room is for Yankee games. I do occasionally use D* in that room to watch content that hasn't found its way to NF or Amazon. I use the Amazon Fire Boxes to stream. If I were to buy a 4K with no intentions of using it for D* except for the times I mentioned previously, I assume the content from the Fire Boxes would be upscaled too? Have you ever tried a streaming box that streams at 1080p/60fps on your 4K?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I concur. I bought the JS9500 and love many things about it, but as you note, the picture tends to wash out a bit when you stand up and look down at the TV or from the sides.
> 
> I also dislike quite a few choices made in the interface (ex: it shows all of my networked devices in the Source menu with no option to hide them; it hides the volume and menu controls from the remote pointer when you are looking at anything other than TV or HDMI, AV inputs (ex: USB, Netflix, Youtube, network content); it doesn't allow you to rearrange pinned items in SmartHub or My Apps; HDMI-CEC is crap) but _*really love the picture quality, and I decided that picture quality outweighs a few inconveniences in the interface.*_


So, you made the leap. Good for you. PQ is just about all I care about in a TV. That and the price. I've never gonna buy another TV set for more than 2 grand. Do you know how to decode the model numbers of the Sammys? Is the 9500 in the JS9500 the processor?

I keep seeing sales of 4K Sammys and LGs and Sonys. I know how to tell which processor the Sonys have, but I have no idea about the LGs or the Sammys. It would be nice to know what I'm looking at before I buy it.

Rich


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Rich said:


> So, you made the leap. Good for you.


Thanks Rich. Very happy with the picture and decision...


----------



## knoxbh (May 1, 2002)

I have a question. I have a Samsung U8550 UHD Smart TV. Do I need the One Connect Evolution Kit for this TV? I have watch UHD material from Netflix andYouTube and they seem to be outstanding. Am I missing something? I think I read someplace the the 8550 does not need the kit - I was just on Samsung and she said I needed it. Do I or don't I? Thanks for your help.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

I went out looking to just get a larger, upgraded 1080p HDTV. We have a low end 40" Toshiba with fluorescent back lighting in the living room and my wife and I decided to buy each other a new, better TV for our anniversary.

We ended up buying a Samsung 4K UHD Smart TV with the curved screen simply because the price was in the same ballpark as what we were looking to spend on an HDTV. We ended up getting a Samsung UN55JU6700 for about $1400. It's lower end for the Samsung curved panels sets but I'm kind of in the same boat as Rich in that the display panel is really all I'm interested in. And with a viewing distance in the living room of 8 feet or so 55 inches should be just fine. 78 inches might actually be overwhelming in that room.

I'll probably play around with the Smart TV features and the Samsung remote does voice command as well as point and shoot, but I am far more likely to use the new set strictly as a monitor, continue using my Harmony remote, routing audio through the AVR/Home Theater and using the Sony Blu Ray for my streaming (if only so I don't have to run an additional digital audio output from the TV to the AVR).

The set is being delivered in about 20 minutes.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

You might want to try digital audio from the TV back to the AVR. Newer sets should be able to handle 5.1 if that's an issue for you. That way you can also use just the TV speakers for news or other programs where excellent sound is lost.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> You might want to try digital audio from the TV back to the AVR. Newer sets should be able to handle 5.1 if that's an issue for you. That way you can also use just the TV speakers for news or other programs where excellent sound is lost.


You could also try the HDMI port marked ARC (Audio Return Channel) if your AVR supports it. I've never had luck getting it to work, but maybe you will!


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> You might want to try digital audio from the TV back to the AVR. Newer sets should be able to handle 5.1 if that's an issue for you. That way you can also use just the TV speakers for news or other programs where excellent sound is lost.


I always use the AVR for audio. My wife has significant hearing loss for one thing and she misses a lot if it isn't loud...too loud for the onboard speaks really. I like it for another. :righton:

I have some TOSLINK cables lying around so I might try it. Don't know if my amp supports ARC or not. It's a couple years old and wasn't top of the line when I bought it (Sony STR-DH520). I'll have to look.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

knoxbh said:


> I have a question. I have a Samsung U8550 UHD Smart TV. Do I need the One Connect Evolution Kit for this TV? I have watch UHD material from Netflix andYouTube and they seem to be outstanding. Am I missing something? I think I read someplace the the 8550 does not need the kit - I was just on Samsung and she said I needed it. Do I or don't I? Thanks for your help.


I also have an HU8550 and have been trying to figure out whether I should buy the 2015 OCB. It gets me the newer Tizen smarttv UI and a newer remote, neither of which I care about, and newer codecs for streaming 4k over the Net, which I might care about. But I can't tell whether my HU8550 already has those codecs. I can watch Youtube 4k videos, but it's not easy to tell whether I'm seeing upconverted 1080p. It _says _4k, and it looks good, but who really knows?


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

OCB
It also gets you hdmi2.0/hccp2.2. Plus I have read rumors it includes alot of new features from the 2015 sets and a hdr upgrade in the future too.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Is there not an info button on the Sammy remote that will say what the rez is?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Christopher Gould said:


> OCB
> It also gets you hdmi2.0/hccp2.2. Plus I have read rumors it includes alot of new features from the 2015 sets and a hdr upgrade in the future too.


Why would you buy it until you knew for sure you needed it for something you wanted to view today? There might be a 2016 upgrade that adds more stuff or at least improves on this.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Is there not an info button on the Sammy remote that will say what the rez is?


If you're asking me, yes, sort of. My 2015 Sammy has a "smart" remote that doesn't have many buttons, but I have some older Sammy remotes lying around that do have an "Info" button. When I press "Info" on one of those remotes, there is no reaction. My smart remote has a sort of emulation mode that puts on screen a picture of the buttons of remotes of by-gone days, and when I use my smart remote and press the virtual Info button on screen, I get ... nothing. No response.

I'm not saying that there is no way to get my Sammy to tell me what it knows about the signal it's receiving. Maybe there's a way. I just haven't yet discovered it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ah, well, I hope when I get my UDH Sammy it will come with a retarded remote as well as a smart one.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> You could also try the HDMI port marked ARC (Audio Return Channel) if your AVR supports it. I've never had luck getting it to work, but maybe you will!


My not so smart TV has an ARC port and the Sony AVR supports it, but I can only get PCM out. I've tried to read the manual, but can't figure out what to do to get 5.1. I've tried what the manual says but they don't mention 5.1. Frustrating, not that big a deal really, but still frustrating. Makes me feel stupid every time I try it.

I must say, my spirits picked up when I read your post. Glad to see it's not just me for a change... :rolling:

Rich


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

The last thing I need are more, better ways to feel stupid.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> ...I'll probably play around with the Smart TV features and the Samsung remote does voice command as well as point and shoot, but I am far more likely to use the new set strictly as a monitor, continue using my Harmony remote, routing audio through the AVR/Home Theater and using the Sony Blu Ray for my streaming (if only so I don't have to run an additional digital audio output from the TV to the AVR).
> 
> The set is being delivered in about 20 minutes.


The Smart TV features are the only way you are going to stream any 4k at the present time. There is a fair amount available. The TV works fine with the Harmony remote, but the tiny Samsung mouse remote is easy to have handy for Smart Hub selections.

All of that is moot, of course, if you don't have 25mbps Broadband.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

patmurphey said:


> The Smart TV features are the only way you are going to stream any 4k at the present time. There is a fair amount available. The TV works fine with the Harmony remote, but the tiny Samsung mouse remote is easy to have handy for Smart Hub selections.
> 
> All of that is moot, of course, if you don't have 25mbps Broadband.


I have FiOS 50/50, and a wired hub right by the TV so that should be enough bandwidth.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

GregLee said:


> If you're asking me, yes, sort of. My 2015 Sammy has a "smart" remote that doesn't have many buttons, but I have some older Sammy remotes lying around that do have an "Info" button. When I press "Info" on one of those remotes, there is no reaction. My smart remote has a sort of emulation mode that puts on screen a picture of the buttons of remotes of by-gone days, and when I use my smart remote and press the virtual Info button on screen, I get ... nothing. No response.
> 
> I'm not saying that there is no way to get my Sammy to tell me what it knows about the signal it's receiving. Maybe there's a way. I just haven't yet discovered it.


I also have a 2015 Samsung (JS9500) and when I press select on the smart remote on the TV or HDMI inputs it will display a resolution in an info banner at the top of the screen, but I haven't figured out a way to see that resolution information while viewing Netflix, YouTube, or any other streaming app.

I have a small Samsung HD LED TV in my den and tried that remote on the TV and the dedicated INFO button works the same way: resolution on the direct inputs or TV mode, but nothing while streaming.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Rich said:


> My not so smart TV has an ARC port and the Sony AVR supports it, but I can only get PCM out. I've tried to read the manual, but can't figure out what to do to get 5.1. I've tried what the manual says but they don't mention 5.1. Frustrating, not that big a deal really, but still frustrating. Makes me feel stupid every time I try it.
> 
> I must say, my spirits picked up when I read your post. Glad to see it's not just me for a change... :rolling:
> 
> Rich


My issue is that I can't figure out what input I'm supposed to put the AVR on to output the sound sent via ARC from the TV! I understand the logic of AVR except for that one small (key) piece! So I've given up.. :lol:


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> My issue is that I can't figure out what input I'm supposed to put the AVR on to output the sound sent via ARC from the TV! I understand the logic of AVR except for that one small (key) piece! So I've given up.. :lol:


I can't get ARC to work, either. I think it's possible that the current operating system for my JS9000 just does not have this completely implemented, yet. For instance, the TV's sound output can be configured to go various places, including a receiver, but the menu option for sending it to the receiver (presumably via the ARC) is greyed out. Even though the TV does know that it is connected to my AVR, since its smart remote controls the AVR volume.

However, the TV's optical output does work to send sound to my AVR, so this is what I'm using for streamed sources, for now.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

GregLee said:


> I can't get ARC to work, either. I think it's possible that the current operating system for my JS9000 just does not have this completely implemented, yet. For instance, the TV's sound output can be configured to go various places, including a receiver, but the menu option for sending it to the receiver (presumably via the ARC) is greyed out. Even though the TV does know that it is connected to my AVR, since its smart remote controls the AVR volume.
> 
> However, the TV's optical output does work to send sound to my AVR, so this is what I'm using for streamed sources, for now.


And that's exactly what I'm doing, using the Optical Out from the one-connect box to my Denon, and every time I turn on the TV it turns on the Denon to the TV optical input and the smart remote is controlling the AVR volume.

I did see what you describe with the Receiver speaker option - it was there for me one day, gone the next, and today it's back. Before it disappeared and now that it's back, I noticed that all of my HDMI inputs on the Source menu are now showing HDMI-CEC options at the bottom of the source drop-down menu. When the Receiver audio option was gone, so were the HDMI-CEC options on all the HDMI inputs on the Source menu. I have no idea what happened that caused them to drop off and return, but I'm happy enough they are back.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> My issue is that I can't figure out what input I'm supposed to put the AVR on to output the sound sent via ARC from the TV! I understand the logic of AVR except for that one small (key) piece! So I've given up.. :lol:


I think both the TV and AVR have labels on the ports for ARC. Still doesn't work.

Rich


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Why would you buy it until you knew for sure you needed it for something you wanted to view today? There might be a 2016 upgrade that adds more stuff or at least improves on this.


No one has bought anything. But I'm doubting the OCB for 2016 will get a 2014 tv many features. But the 2015 OCB features may improve the picture quality over the already great picture quality.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> The Smart TV features are the only way you are going to stream any 4k at the present time. There is a fair amount available. The TV works fine with the Harmony remote, but the tiny Samsung mouse remote is easy to have handy for Smart Hub selections.
> 
> All of that is moot, of course, if you don't have 25mbps Broadband.


I can watch Netflix 4k with 20mbps average 16-18mbps.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Just posting the recommended speed...


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Well, it was as hard as plugging one end of the HDMI cable into the TV port labeled ARC (HDMI3 on this set) and the other end into the AVR's TV Out HDMI connection and setting the AVR input to TV. 

It's picking up the audio from the streaming content over the ARC and according to the display on the AVR it's in 5.1. 

I don't get any audio over the TV now though, although I think it's switchable in the menu. 

However it does do something that kind of surprised and impressed me. When I use the TV remote to try and adjust the volume on the TV now, instead of the volume setting it displays a message like AMP or something and my adjustments change the volume on the AVR. It has to be doing it over the ARC signal. I'm guessing it's part of the ARC standard but I am unfamiliar with it and this wasn't expected.


EDIT: OK, I see that the whole Anynet+ / HDMI-CEC thing is what supports the external device control like changing the volume on my AVR. It's on pages 125-126 of the manual. I don't recall ever having a TV manual with 125 pages before and this one actually has 176


----------



## maonstad (Jul 13, 2007)

Rich said:


> My not so smart TV has an ARC port and the Sony AVR supports it, but I can only get PCM out. I've tried to read the manual, but can't figure out what to do to get 5.1. I've tried what the manual says but they don't mention 5.1. Frustrating, not that big a deal really, but still frustrating. Makes me feel stupid every time I try it.
> 
> I must say, my spirits picked up when I read your post. Glad to see it's not just me for a change... :rolling:
> 
> Rich


My Sammy has arc out, make sure cable is on the arc out hdmi jack. Go into menu -> Sound --> Additional Settings -> HD Audio (which is the place to select the output). At least that is what my Sammy is.. (4K) You also should use ver 2.0 hdmi cable....
Mark


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

maonstad said:


> ... You also should use ver 2.0 hdmi cable....
> Mark


To note: AIUI there's really no such thing as a "2.0 HDMI cable" outside of a marketing ploy to sell you unnecessarily more expensive cables.

The HDMI, HDCP, CEC, etc., protocols are all handled by chips on the connected equipment that control the transfer of data between them. The HDMI cable itself is really just a dumb pipe that comes in essentially two varieties. Hi and low bandwidth versions.

The hi bandwidth version commonly sold today is sufficient for both HD and UHD (or 4K).

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

maonstad said:


> My Sammy has arc out, make sure cable is on the arc out hdmi jack. Go into menu -> Sound --> Additional Settings -> HD Audio (which is the place to select the output). At least that is what my Sammy is.. (4K) You also should use ver 2.0 hdmi cable....
> Mark


Your Sammy appears to be a lot smarter than my Panny. I haven't got those choices. I gotta read the manual again. Ever read a Panny manual? They seem to "assume" you know what they're talking about. Even Panny's woeful tech support can't decipher the things.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> Well, it was as hard as plugging one end of the HDMI cable into the TV port labeled ARC (HDMI3 on this set) and the other end into the AVR's TV Out HDMI connection and setting the AVR input to TV.
> 
> It's picking up the audio from the streaming content over the ARC and according to the display on the AVR it's in 5.1.
> 
> ...


Mine only has 65 pages. Under Specifications it has this: PCM/Dolby Digital, Fiber Optic. That's what made me think the TV would output 5.1 sound. Now my OCD is kicking in again and I'll try to figure this out. But first, I've gotta figure out why I'd do this.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> To note: AIUI there's really no such thing as a "2.0 HDMI cable" outside of a marketing ploy to sell you unnecessarily more expensive cables.


There should be a sticky somewhere about the universal truths of HDMI (and other) cables.

Of course as they start adding things like Ethernet to the HDMI cables, things get dicey quick. I did a count the other day and there appear to be no less than five different SATA connector configurations. So much for standardization.

I still maintain that they should throw out the current HDMI connector and replace it with something a whole lot more sturdy (but not necessarily bulkier).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I still maintain that they should throw out the current HDMI connector and replace it with something a whole lot more sturdy (but not necessarily bulkier).


They should replace the whole thing and use twisted pair with ARJ45 connectors. Then you could build your own cables to custom lengths and wouldn't need stupid hacks like Redmere to run 4K any sort of distance.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> I also have a 2015 Samsung (JS9500) and when I press select on the smart remote on the TV or HDMI inputs it will display a resolution in an info banner at the top of the screen, but I haven't figured out a way to see that resolution information while viewing Netflix, YouTube, or any other streaming app.


An AVS poster told how to tell the resolution of a Youtube video. Bring up the Youtube app. In the left margin, choose "...". Scroll down to Settings and choose that. Scroll to the right to Show video into and enable that. This overlays an info screen on every video as it's playing. (I discover that at download speeds of 10-12 Mbps, I'm not getting any 4k on Youtube -- it's all downrezzed. Good to know.)


----------



## ep1974 (May 22, 2010)

GregLee said:


> An AVS poster told how to tell the resolution of a Youtube video. Bring up the Youtube app. In the left margin, choose "...". Scroll down to Settings and choose that. Scroll to the right to Show video into and enable that. This overlays an info screen on every video as it's playing. (I discover that at download speeds of 10-12 Mbps, I'm not getting any 4k on Youtube -- it's all downrezzed. Good to know.)


I tried this. Enabled the show video info and played a couple of 4K videos but still no info as to what resolution. Am I doing something wrong? Any suggestions?


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

ep1974 said:


> I tried this. Enabled the show video info and played a couple of 4K videos but still no info as to what resolution. Am I doing something wrong? Any suggestions?


All that occurs to me is that I might have a more recent version of the software than you have. Try updating. On the menu: Support > Software Update > Update now (my version is 1213) and also System > Smart Control Settings > Firmware Update (newest is a0531000).


----------

