To 4K or Not To 4K?

[NewspaperTaxis]

From what I've heard, the answer is To Not 4K...

I go around John Lewis, looking at what's on offer, and it's all the latest 4K stuff with recorded Alpine vistas and slow scans across incredibly detailed panoramic vistas. But the big five channels are only upgrading to 4K at the end of March, and the others simply aren't and it seems that ordinary channels like Drama or True Entertainment show a just awful picture, worse than any five-year-old Panasonic Viera flatscreen. It looks like its been beamed in from a Romanian channel using an early 80s receiver bought from Del Boy.

I simply cannot see how or why anyone would spend nearly a grand on a set like this, unless you are only watching the main channels and your Blu Rays. Is it right that you're best getting just Hi Def for the time being? I never thought it would be this hard to fork out for a satisfactory telly, though I don't know, maybe it isn't? I just never see a telly where the picture looks right across the board, only when it's set up to a BBC1 HD or on a prerecord.

[Ulysses]

We got one on New Year's day from Tesco! It's an LG and it was only £370. To be honest we were simply looking for a Smart TV as our old one was a 10 year old Philips which is still working perfectly but the picture quality is rubbish (no HD sky box either!).

The thing is when we watched Sherlock that night, half of the scenes looked like something from Doctors, really flat. I'm not noticing so much now mind. I'm guessing it's because it's HD on 4K?

It's well worth the money though, so far as we subscribe to Amazon and Netflix and are about to cancel Sky so we can choose what to watch and when. Stops the endless channel surfing as well.

TV technology is developing so quickly that paying a grand for something that may last 10 years quality wise but will be outpaced by something else only a few years down the line for far less.