4K TVs Continue To Rise Despite TV Shipments Dropping

[RolloTheGreat]

Netflix says 100 hours of new 4K HDR content is on the way: http://4k.com/netflix-is-dramatically-ex...6-14173-2/

Let's see Amazon Prime try to catch up to Netflix in terms of content and quality ( so many TV shows and movies actually have the ".1" LFE channel for the subwoofer via Netflix on the PS3/PS4 )....   Even the most recent season of Game of Thrones show on HBO Go is barely HD (looks like 720p to me, finally but still nothing like Netflix's 1080p) still does not come with the LFE channel for a true 5.1 output.  The same goes for Hulu's crap. 
However, by judging from this image (from the link in above quote):

Well, well, ......  if I can see the difference on my NON-HDR monitor right now (which is actually a crappy TN color panel that does Gsync), shouldn't filmmakers just compensate for this by using HDR when creating the picture? 
I agree with the post above that it's the OLED display that would make more sense, where blacks aren't "grey".

Is it just me, or does the non HDR image look 100X more real?

I'm an ice fisherman that lives at the top of the country, just south of Canada, and I see lots of ice.

None of it is neon blue, and the world outside caves is never all neon blue for me either. Ice looks shiney white like in the non HDR picture, the world looks closer to the non HDR picture. (more drab)

Now, I'm wrong if this is supposed to be some alien world of blue, but the world I live in doesn't look like this.

[RolloTheGreat]

BTW, on the left side of the image above, are the trees in the front of the ice cave actually neon blue?  Frosty blue?

Heh, you noticed it too. (didn't read this post before replying)

Yes, these are the electric blue trees of Venus!

[SteelCrysis]

4K TVs sold 1.5 million units in Q1 2016: http://4k.com/news/more-than-1-5-million...les-14406/

[RolloTheGreat]

Not at the expense of not being able to see the indvidual pixels.  You haven't really got a 4K display if you can't resolve all of the pixels that make it up.  You have something like a 2K display instead.

GStan logic.
The world looks better pixelated, and that's what display makers attempt to provide.

[SteelCrysis]

More info on HDR compatibility: http://hdguru.com/will-hdr-lead-to-anoth...connector/

[BoFox]

Gosh, what if Pascal GP1080 does not support HDR?!??

o.O


Nah, we'll know for sure probably tonight.

[SteelCrysis]

ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-r...hd-monitor

[RolloTheGreat]

ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-r...hd-monitor

I'm considering getting a 4k tv in July. I don't particularly think I need one but I hate being the last guy on the planet adopting stuff.

[SickBeast]

ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-r...hd-monitor

I'm considering getting a 4k tv in July. I don't particularly think I need one but I hate being the last guy on the planet adopting stuff.

What kind of tv are you looking at getting? I want one too but there is still very little content. I want it mainly for the PC uses.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[RolloTheGreat]

ASUS working on 4K IPS 144 Hz monitor: http://www.techpowerup.com/223213/asus-r...hd-monitor

I'm considering getting a 4k tv in July. I don't particularly think I need one but I hate being the last guy on the planet adopting stuff.

What kind of tv are you looking at getting? I want one too but there is still very little content. I want it mainly for the PC uses.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I'm leaning towards these two currently.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ju7100

(this is frontrunner)

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x810c

I've told my neighbor I'm selling him my 60" 1080P tv when I move next month, so I have to buy something.

I'm also considering this 1080P tv, because I'm going to PlayStation Vue tv which is 720p only.

http://www.cnet.com/products/vizio-e-series-2015/

[RolloTheGreat]

BTW- Mrs Rollo loves this.

She said, "So we're buying two new beds, at least two new nightstands, a new couch, one or two new chairs, new light fixtures, a new dining room table set, a new sump pump, and having a room dry walled at the new house and you decide to help by buying the one thing we don't need at all?"

[SickBeast]

Just make sure that the tv has hdr. I don't see it on the Sony one you linked to.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[RolloTheGreat]

Just make sure that the tv has hdr. I don't see it on the Sony one you linked to.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

You may be right on this one SB, but I doubt I'll get one of the HD Premium sets.

Might get a last years Sony like this one:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/Sony_xbr65x85...oC7Kvw_wcB

I've read it supports HD Premium spec for color gamut and black level, but not brightness. Too many expenses these days with move, not enough bang for buck on HDR.

[SickBeast]

Just make sure that the tv has hdr. I don't see it on the Sony one you linked to.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

You may be right on this one SB, but I doubt I'll get one of the HD Premium sets.

Might get a last years Sony like this one:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/Sony_xbr65x85...oC7Kvw_wcB

I've read it supports HD Premium spec for color gamut and black level, but not brightness. Too many expenses these days with move,  not enough bang for buck on HDR.

There was a 65" LG HDR 4k TV on sale last week for $999, I think it was at Fry's. Just watch for a good deal on SlickDeals. Don't get hung up on particular models. Just look for a good deal on a good brand and you'll be fine.

[SickBeast]

There is a 55" RCA 4k TV on sale here locally tomorrow for $499CAD and I'm really tempted to buy it. It has HDMI 2.0 and it can do full 4k resolution at 60hz with 4:4:4 chroma. Hmm what to do...

[BoFox]

HDR, baby, HDR!!!

Or OLED at least!!  

55" is an "ok" size, if you like to sit kind of close to it (for a small room), so just go for a bigger one as well, if you can.  I'm telling you, my old 65" does feel small now compared to my 100".  

[RolloTheGreat]

HDR, baby, HDR!!!

Or OLED at least!!  

55" is an "ok" size, if you like to sit kind of close to it (for a small room), so just go for a bigger one as well, if you can.  I'm telling you, my old 65" does feel small now compared to my 100".  

It's a big deal for sure!

http://4k.com/netflix-is-dramatically-ex...6-14173-2/


If I get a HDR tv, I'll be able to get a Netflix subscription and watch "Marco Polo" or "The Ridiculous Six" in HDR!

I've been wanting to see Marco Polo since it came out, he was such an intrepid adventurer! I long to see his travels in Asia brought to life in uber realism!

Errr...yeah.

Personally I still think 4K and HDR are the new flavor of "3D", gimmicks used by goggle box builders to sell tellies.

Nonetheless, I'm buying a new tv, will almost certainly be 4K, and may be some form of HDR. I'll post "Yawn. Now I have a tv for rare content I have no desire to see" after that.

Guess I'm a sheeple to some extent as well.

[BoFox]

LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

[RolloTheGreat]

LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

If prices are the same next month as this month, I'll probably be buying a 65", 4K, no HDR and looking for a true 120Hz panel. (like the XBR65810C)

I'm not competing with anyone on the house. Stayed with "either wife or I can afford" model to maximize economic security.

Don't want to end up like this guy if one of us can't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxXHEx-XnU

[SickBeast]

HDR, baby, HDR!!!

Or OLED at least!!  

55" is an "ok" size, if you like to sit kind of close to it (for a small room), so just go for a bigger one as well, if you can.  I'm telling you, my old 65" does feel small now compared to my 100".  

What are you using, a projector? 100" TVs cost $100,000 which is completely nuts. 70" TVs cost a bomb. If anything I am considering a 65" for now until the prices drop. But for $499CAD for a decent 55" 4k TV with HDMI 2.0, that's pocket change and it will hold me off until the prices drop on the larger HDR TVs. I might get that TV if it goes on sale again. There was no stock when I went in for it.

You're not offending me by the way. If you can afford a $100,000 TV I say good for you. It's your money. For myself personally I am still paying off my student loans and I'm trying to be careful with my money. Once my loans are paid off, I plan to buy a nice TV, upgrade my computer, and redo my bathroom.

[BoFox]

LOL, if I spent $100K on a TV, that would mean I'd be "TRULY RICH"!!! Didn't I make it clear that I was not?!? I can't even afford a millionaire's home!

Yeah, it's a projector. Viewsonic 3D-capable projector that supports 3D Blu-ray movies (and Nvidia 3DVision). It has a 1:1 1080p pixel output that is so sharp that I can clearly see the individual pixels from several feet away. The black levels aren't perfectly black like with an OLED, let alone a VA screen, but isn't much worse than an IPS or a TN LCD screen. The contrast ratio is almost just as good at Regal or Cinemax cinemas theater - it's not much different, really. If I painted my walls black (for zero reflection), then it would probably be identical, LOL.

As I got used to it, it doesn't feel that "WOW" anymore. Like when I just upgraded from say, 32" to 65" several years ago, I felt "WOW" for a while, and then got used to it. So it's all relative, I guess. That's why rich people (not that I'm rich) aren't much happier than poor people.

LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

If prices are the same next month as this month, I'll probably be buying a 65", 4K, no HDR and looking for a true 120Hz panel. (like the XBR65810C)

I'm not competing with anyone on the house. Stayed with "either wife or I can afford" model to maximize economic security.

Don't want to end up like this guy if one of us can't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxXHEx-XnU

WOW - a true 120Hz panel!!!!!!!!! Thanks for sharing this model to me - I'm reading the reviews on this now and seeing if it's worth buying before the summer vacation! We plan on going to FL for 3 weeks, and camping for at least 2 weeks (hopefully 3 weeks as well).

I can't believe that there's finally a big-screen TV that is actually handling true 120Hz!!!

[RolloTheGreat]

WOW - a true 120Hz panel!!!!!!!!!   Thanks for sharing this model to me - I'm reading the reviews on this now and seeing if it's worth buying before the summer vacation!  We plan on going to FL for 3 weeks, and camping for at least 2 weeks (hopefully 3 weeks as well).  

I can't believe that there's finally a big-screen TV that is actually handling true 120Hz!!!

I read a review of that tv that says the upscaling is amazing, and I'm going to have PlayStation Vue as my tv now. (which is 720P, so to me upscaling is very important)

I also like the native 120Hz aspect, should pretty much do away with both motion blur and soap opera effect.

Abes of Main has that tv for $1339 shipped, seems like a good deal.

http://www.abesofmaine.com/Sony_BRAVIA_X...oCinjw_wcB

[SickBeast]

LOL, if I spent $100K on a TV, that would mean I'd be "TRULY RICH"!!!  Didn't I make it clear that I was not?!?  I can't even afford a millionaire's home!  

Yeah, it's a projector.  Viewsonic 3D-capable projector that supports 3D Blu-ray movies (and Nvidia 3DVision).  It has a 1:1 1080p pixel output that is so sharp that I can clearly see the individual pixels from several feet away.  The black levels aren't perfectly black like with an OLED, let alone a VA screen, but isn't much worse than an IPS or a TN LCD screen.  The contrast ratio is almost just as good at Regal or Cinemax cinemas theater - it's not much different, really.  If I painted my walls black (for zero reflection), then it would probably be identical, LOL.  

As I got used to it, it doesn't feel that "WOW" anymore.  Like when I just upgraded from say, 32" to 65" several years ago, I felt "WOW" for a while, and then got used to it.  So it's all relative, I guess.  That's why rich people (not that I'm rich) aren't much happier than poor people.  

LOL, sheeple!

Well, HDR does seem to be a safe bet, if one plans on keeping that 4K TV for the next few years.  I know it might be half-assed for now, but it still does seem promising, nonetheless, and more practical than say, using 3D glasses or watching fake 120Hz interpolated frames. 

Hey SickBeast,
I didn't mean to gloat at you - just that when I take my family to my parents' house, and watch a tv show or a movie there on their 55" TV, it does seem too small for us to enjoy.  I mean, painfully small in a medium-sized living room that's maybe 18 feet long.  I guess we're just used to a bigger screen..   

But you want a 4K TV, yet at the same 55" size...  man, I'd recommend 70" as the bare minimum for 4K in a medium-size living room, even if viewing from only 12 feet away or so. 
That was the main thing Rollo had against 4K TV's, in that 1080p looked good enough for his 60" tucked away in a corner.  

It might cost a lot more $$, but trust me, bro - at least 70" is a much more comfortable size for the living room, and you'll not regret it at all.

That's the real reason Rollo's buying a new house.  He just has to beat me!!!  

If prices are the same next month as this month, I'll probably be buying a 65", 4K, no HDR and looking for a true 120Hz panel. (like the XBR65810C)

I'm not competing with anyone on the house. Stayed with "either wife or I can afford" model to maximize economic security.

Don't want to end up like this guy if one of us can't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxXHEx-XnU

WOW - a true 120Hz panel!!!!!!!!!   Thanks for sharing this model to me - I'm reading the reviews on this now and seeing if it's worth buying before the summer vacation!  We plan on going to FL for 3 weeks, and camping for at least 2 weeks (hopefully 3 weeks as well).  

I can't believe that there's finally a big-screen TV that is actually handling true 120Hz!!!

You sound like you have a lot of money. Same thing with ocre.

Projectors are great if you watch TV in your basement. For people like me with a very bright living room, however, they are not a good option. I don't want to keep my curtains closed all the time either.

Why do you guys want 120hz? Is 60fps really not enough for you? Does 120hz really make that much difference? Also, what kind of insane GPU setup are you going to use to drive modern games at 4k resolution at 120fps? apoppin recently wrote an article that showed that SLI and Crossfire do not scale well at all in newer games.

[RolloTheGreat]

You sound like you have a lot of money.  Same thing with ocre.

Projectors are great if you watch TV in your basement.  For people like me with a very bright living room, however, they are not a good option.  I don't want to keep my curtains closed all the time either.

Why do you guys want 120hz?  Is 60fps really not enough for you?  Does 120hz really make that much difference?  Also, what kind of insane GPU setup are you going to use to drive modern games at 4k resolution at 120fps?  apoppin recently wrote an article that showed that SLI and Crossfire do not scale well at all in newer games.

I can't speak for them, but I want it for sports and fast motion in tv shows, and no soap opera effect.

The super fast refresh rate of plasma is one of the main reasons it was superior.

[SickBeast]

Will it take a full 120hz input over HDMI 2.0 at full 4k resolution at 4:4:4 chroma though? Can HDMI 2.0 even handle that?

[RolloTheGreat]

Will it take a full 120hz input over HDMI 2.0 at full 4k resolution at 4:4:4 chroma though?  Can HDMI 2.0 even handle that?

The spec of the tv is 120Hz at 1080P and 4K at 60Hz 4:4:4.

Since my input is going to be PlayStation Vue at 720p (or cable at 1080p) it's a 120Hz panel to me. (I won't be computer gaming on it)

[BoFox]

Why do you guys want 120hz?  Is 60fps really not enough for you?  Does 120hz really make that much difference?  Also, what kind of insane GPU setup are you going to use to drive modern games at 4k resolution at 120fps?  apoppin recently wrote an article that showed that SLI and Crossfire do not scale well at all in newer games.

Wow, interesting article by Poppin!  He should create an account over at WCCFTech, post comments linking to his review, and bring in 1000's of fanboys from that insane site!  But then he'd have to ban 80% of them if he's still picky.

Nvidia bascially removing official support for 3 and 4-way SLI for the new Pascal GP104 cards probably implies this dilemma, especially if Nvidia know there's something in the way like a bottleneck of some kind - in order to avoid disappointing rich gaming brats.


RE: 120fps!!!!  OH YES, for fast-paced gaming.  Yeah, Rollo said it can only do 120Hz via 1080p, not 4K (still a limitation of HDMI 2.0, I think, but DP 1.3/1.4 should certainly be capable of 120Hz@4K).  120Hz is always nice for gaming, even if the frame rate is say, only 50fps.  One of my friends has a 49" 1080p TV hooked up to his gaming rig, right next to his monitor.  It's nice to use - I can understand Gstan's point.  

It makes me wonder if more TV's will start supporting true 120Hz @ 1080p this year, and if the PS4 Neo will as well (thanks to HDMI 2.0).  It'd be awesome for 3D too, giving a cleaner, clearer 60Hz per eye, so that games look basically just as good as say, Oculus Rift (although I have yet to try one)..  Sure, 3D is an almost-failed niche, but it's really awesome to use for a bunch of games!

[RolloTheGreat]

Hmmm....

Took Rollo Jr to Best Buy tonight, the XBR65X810C is a good looking 4K tv.

The 65" HDR tvs do look a bit better, but are $2000 instead of $1500..

Decisions, decisions.

[SickBeast]

Rollo...don't get caught up on one particular brand or model. Check Slickdeals regularly. I saw a 65" LG 4k HDR TV on there about two weeks ago for $999USD.

Maybe check this one out:

http://slickdeals.net/f/8832675-65-samsu...=catpagev2

I have seen better deals though.

[RolloTheGreat]

Rollo...don't get caught up on one particular brand or model.  Check Slickdeals regularly.  I saw a 65" LG 4k HDR TV on there about two weeks ago for $999USD.

Maybe check this one out:

http://slickdeals.net/f/8832675-65-samsu...=catpagev2

I have seen better deals though.

So far you're just showing me lower end than I want to go or tvs getting bad reviews. If I'm opening my wallet, I want something decent. (always shoot for midrange at least)

Need a $2500-$3000 tv for $2000, that sort of thing.

[SickBeast]

The TV got a good review, particularly for gaming:

http://ca.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ju6400

However it's of no use to you because it can't do 4:4:4 chroma at 4k at 60hz.

You should check SlickDeals though. I'm not fussy about TVs. I don't notice much difference at all between a low end and a high end model aside from the price. Oftentimes a low end TV will have the same panel as a high end model from a different brand.

[RolloTheGreat]

The TV got a good review, particularly for gaming:

http://ca.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ju6400

However it's of no use to you because it can't do 4:4:4 chroma at 4k at 60hz.

You should check SlickDeals though.  I'm not fussy about TVs.  I don't notice much difference at all between a low end and a high end model aside from the price.  Oftentimes a low end TV will have the same panel as a high end model from a different brand.

This isn't a good TV for watching movies in a dim room. The contrast is very low and the blacks will appear gray. The TV also has judder on 24p sources (like Blu-ray) and doesn't have any fancy features like 3D, local dimming, or HDR.

That's not what I call a "good review".

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-...Id=4924100

That is the sort of tv I'm looking at.

[SickBeast]

Keep in mind the fact that many LG 4k TVs are not actually 4k. Something about a fourth sub-pixel.

[BenSkywalker]

And just to add to that, for displays that actually get reasonably close to an expanded space, we certainly test for that. See our iPad Pro 9.7" review for an example of that.

Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

[RolloTheGreat]

Keep in mind the fact that many LG 4k TVs are not actually 4k.  Something about a fourth sub-pixel.

The TV you recommended got 5.8 for movies and tv, I've never seen a rating that low for a TV's primary use.

The one I listed gets a 7.7:

http://ca.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh8500

(and all the tvs I'm considering are in the 7s on this except one Samsung that makes it to the low 8s)

[RolloTheGreat]

And just to add to that, for displays that actually get reasonably close to an expanded space, we certainly test for that. See our iPad Pro 9.7" review for an example of that.

Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

The OLEDs do have a better picture, the Best Buy trip had us both very impressed with a tv that cost $5,900..

Not impressed enough to pay $5,900 for a tv, but it definitely has better contrast than the various LED tvs.

[SickBeast]

Contrast ratio is just one spec. OLED and Plasma lovers go on and on about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread, but it's just one aspect of picture quality. LED TVs have other advantages over both of those technologies. I don't know who in their right mind would pay 6x as much just to get a better contrast ratio and deeper blacks. It seems crazy to me.

[RolloTheGreat]

Contrast ratio is just one spec.  OLED and Plasma lovers go on and on about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread, but it's just one aspect of picture quality.  LED TVs have other advantages over both of those technologies.  I don't know who in their right mind would pay 6x as much just to get a better contrast ratio and deeper blacks.  It seems crazy to me.

It's not crazy, and if OLEDs and LEDs were the same price we'd all have OLEDs.

They can perform perfect black, perfect white, and are perfectly uniform because each pixel is individually lit, and can be fully dark. They also use less power, have far wider viewing angles, and faster response times.

I don't know of any LED advantages other than price, panel life, and resistance to burn in.

I'm just glad LED TVs are a lot better so I don't have to spend $5K on a tv.

[BoFox]

Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

This white subpixel that supposedly doubles the brightness does so at a cost, putting colors and gamma all out of whack.  I'd avoid this brightness boost like the plague, if I don't want mucked-up colors. 

Greyscale, gamma and colours were a mess on the RGBW TV, presumably due to a mismatch between the incoming RGB video signal and the RGBW subpixel structure. In particular, colour luminance was impossible to get right on the sample we tested.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/rgbw-201510084189.htm

We watched a variety of material including our reference Blu-ray films on both the calibrated RGBW and RGB LED televisions, and consistently found the colours and tonality on the RGBW set to not look quite right, with skin tones in particular appearing pasty fairly frequently.
...
We’re confused by the purpose of an RGBW LED LCD TV. Yes, it can resolve 3840 pixels horizontally and 2160 pixels vertically (though not both at the same time), but that’s beside the point. The diluting effect of the additional white subpixel damages colour fidelity irreparably: by trying to shoehorn RGB video signals into an RGBW matrix, colour information is lost, and users will never be able to enjoy movies in the manner intended by the director.

Fuck the white light boost that fucks it up all for marketing purposes!

[RolloTheGreat]

Off the top of my head they actually are 4K, they have an RGBW configuration for each sub pixel instead of RGB. For HDR purposes LCD's have a lot of trouble hitting the contrast level they need to because of their inability to produce anything truly close to black. Due to this, they need to push rather insane brightness based on what we are used to. The white subpixel allows them, in essence, to double(or more) their brightness and achieve the level of nits they need to offset their very poor blacks.

They actually have created two different HDR standards, one for OLEDs(for point of reference, plasma TVs would use this if they were still around) and one for LCDs. The contrast actually still favors OLEDs(which have infinite contrast available to them by nature) but it at least allows LCDs to get to non embarrassing contrast levels, albeit at the expense of a torch level brightness the likes of which most people have never seen before

This white subpixel that supposedly doubles the brightness does so at a cost, putting colors and gamma all out of whack.  I'd avoid this brightness boost like the plague, if I don't want mucked-up colors. 

Greyscale, gamma and colours were a mess on the RGBW TV, presumably due to a mismatch between the incoming RGB video signal and the RGBW subpixel structure. In particular, colour luminance was impossible to get right on the sample we tested.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/rgbw-201510084189.htm

We watched a variety of material including our reference Blu-ray films on both the calibrated RGBW and RGB LED televisions, and consistently found the colours and tonality on the RGBW set to not look quite right, with skin tones in particular appearing pasty fairly frequently.
...
We’re confused by the purpose of an RGBW LED LCD TV. Yes, it can resolve 3840 pixels horizontally and 2160 pixels vertically (though not both at the same time), but that’s beside the point. The diluting effect of the additional white subpixel damages colour fidelity irreparably: by trying to shoehorn RGB video signals into an RGBW matrix, colour information is lost, and users will never be able to enjoy movies in the manner intended by the director.

Fuck the white light boost that fucks it up all for marketing purposes!

Your post and Bens makes me wonder if I should forget about HDR for now.

The raw picture quality of this 4k TV is pretty great, making it a good choice for watching movies. The blacks are good and the colors not too far off by default.

It doesn't have any fancy features (local dimming, extended color gamut, 3D), but unless you plan to be an early adopter of HDR content, it doesn't really matter.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x810c