# Explain new TVs to me **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 30, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-new-tvs-to-me/805556 "2017-12-30T03:17:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![swampspruce](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/swampspruce/32/261_2.png) [@swampspruce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swampspruce)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-new-tvs-to-me/805556/41 "2018-01-02T16:42:30Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > One reason it looks better despite the various eye charts suggesting otherwise is there’s also a big increase in bit-rate for 4k netflix. It’s around 25 megabits instead of around 8-10 megabits. This means less encoding errors and a sharper picture…even sitting back at a distance where you only barely are able to see the extra details from the 4k in itself. > > It’s possible that 4k blu rays don’t look much better, from far away, on an identical in spec 1080p display vs a 4k set. I mean, I dunno, blu ray is such yesterday’s tech. Who wants to pay so much to ‘own’ a plastic disk you might lose and have to wait for it to even ship to your home, etc. AIUI, The UHD Blu-Rays look even better than streamed Netflix does. I have 25 Mb/s coming in usually but have only seen BR UHD demos in store so I can’t honestly do an apples to apples comparison (until I order my Oppo BD-203) but the link [here](https://www.whathifi.com/features/4k-streaming-vs-4k-blu-ray-vs-blu-ray-which-best) has. I can say that soundwise, streaming doesn’t even come close (yet) as I have yet to see anything streaming DTS:X or Atmos and when I watch movies the sound is incredibly important to me. FWIW, I’ve lost far more digital content over the years than plastic discs. I like having hard copy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-new-tvs-to-me/805556/42 "2018-01-02T16:47:27Z")
It is a truth universally acknowledged that improving the resolution, increasing the size or any other enhancement totally fails to improve 99% of the programmes. I have been using a pretty decent Samsung LED TV which could show 3D if it didn’t make us nauseous, for several years. Much of the programming we watch is not in HD because it was not recorded in HD. Even that which is recorded in HD is often not really improved - this mainly applies to indoor stuff like the soaps. Anything imported from the USA (we get a lot of that) is a poor quality picture, largely, I imagine, because of the different colour/ PAL/NTSC colour systems. What really does get the benefit is anything recent on DVD and anything shot in the outdoors. The wonderful Blue Planet is a prime example and worth the upgrade on its own. My advice is to go for a size that fits your room and the best quality you can afford. When you get it, the settings may well be wrong for your situation, especially if it has been set to Dynamic which is essentially a shop mode and should be avoided, while Cinema modes are designed to be viewed in low light only. So you either need to pay someone to set it up for you or go online and find the settings that work best for that model. It will certainly be a lot less bright than the showroom settings, but they have to compete with strip lighting. There are many adjustments from grey scale to motion handling available and it takes time to get them right. It’s well worth the effort though. This site offers good basic advice. [How to set up your TV for the perfect picture | TechRadar](http://www.techradar.com/how-to/television/tv-setup-guide-14-tips-for-getting-the-best-picture-quality-out-of-your-tv-1249665) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-new-tvs-to-me/805556/43 "2018-01-02T17:37:22Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > It is a truth universally acknowledged that improving the resolution, increasing the size or any other enhancement totally fails to improve 99% of the programmes. > > I have been using a pretty decent Samsung LED TV which could show 3D if it didn’t make us nauseous, for several years. Much of the programming we watch is not in HD because it was not recorded in HD. Even that which is recorded in HD is often not really improved - this mainly applies to indoor stuff like the soaps. Anything imported from the USA (we get a lot of that) is a poor quality picture, largely, I imagine, because of the different colour/ PAL/NTSC colour systems. What really does get the benefit is anything recent on DVD and anything shot in the outdoors. The wonderful Blue Planet is a prime example and worth the upgrade on its own. DVDs do not play “HD” video. Blu-Ray discs do, but they’re not the same as DVDs. A PAL DVD gives a 720×540 resolution; HD is 1280 × 720 up to1920 × 1080 (“1080p”). No wonder you didn’t see a difference. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-new-tvs-to-me/805556.md?page=2)