gessman Loc: Colorado

Just make sure your sensor is clean 'cause them little bitty black dots you occasionally see on a monitor are in UHD and the size of a basketball on a big screen.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I'm trying to make the point that you don't have to be a video shooter. I'm trying to make the case for using a 4K TV to view photos. Screens, TV or computer, have to "resize" JPEGs to fit. Most of us have 1920x1080 computer screens. That's about 2 megapixels. 4K TVs show about 8 megapixels. So if you shoot with a camera that captures 20 megapixels, the 4K TV resizing is a more pleasant experience. The electronics industry is already at work on 8K. When that happens, viewing on an 8K screen will be nearly 1:1 for a lot of cameras.

I don't think you will need to adjust your photos, unless you resized the pixel dimensions for you computer screen.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

From what I have read above OLED is the way to go:
http://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/a1e-series#product_details_default

If I go with Sony there are only three sizes. I think I would go with the 65 inch size. There is a big jump in price beyond that.

The Acoustic Surface Technology might be an improvement, at least for my wife. My ears are shot because of age and exposure to gun fire. Then again, I can use all the help I can get when it come to hearing.

I'm a bit concerned because it mentions Android TV. Does that mean it will not work with my Mac and iPhone?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I can't believe this far into this conversation no one mentioned that 4K TVs Upscale 1080p content to successfully look better. They do and it works.

We are all sold on HDMI connectivity with new TVs and that's good.

I have a 65" 4K LG 3D TV and a 55" 4K LG 3D TV. I like 3D. I'm in a stereo photography camera club and digital stereo is amazing. I can play my own stereo movies and photos and it's literally another dimension. Right now, 3D is not "IN" but it will come back. LG is the only company making them. They are still making 3D movies however, that you can rent and always show on your 3D TV.

OLED 4K technology delivers blacker blacks which has the effect of making all colors pop more. But, Regular 4K is the way to go vs. OLED 4K if price is a factor. The difference is not worth almost twice the price. I would rather have 3D which is a stunning difference for the money. And incidentally, 3D technology does not add that much to the total cost.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Thanks for jumping in here. I noticed that if I go with Sony and OLED, that there is not a 3D model available. I did a search for "OLED and 3D" and found that the are made by other manufactures. I keep hearing that 3D is dead but you are correct. No one can predict the future. If I eliminate the 3D option, only then an I assure that 3D is a dead option for me. My son and his wife are big 3D buffs and love their 3D TV. I have been a 3D fan sice the fifties and remember watching the first 3D movies with red and blue filters in my cardboard glasses.

I noticed that the 3D being offered on OLED screen is the passive type. Maybe that is a good thing. It seems like it would be easier to get passive glasses than the active ones. Do you have any more thoughts on the 3D aspects?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Active is a little brighter than passive and that's because it doesn't rely on polarized lenses in the glasses which cuts down the light a little. However, you have to charge the batteries, extra glasses cost, and there is more to go wrong with it. Passive 3D is more popular, it's less complicated and all you need are the inexpensive polarized glasses that come with your TV or that you get at the movies (which after you pay admission are yours to keep free if you want). Of course you also need a 3D Bluray player (you can get them for under $100, and they play 2D disks as well).

Yes, OLED is the future but it's expensive now. As I said, currently LG is the only manufacturer making 3D TVs now. One more caveat about 3D. The content in terms of movies is lacking unless you like explosions, car chases and Marvel comics. But I have enjoyed some great movies too in 3D. Jurassic Park, Hugo, even an Alfred Hitchcock movie, Dial M for Murder. Talk about stunning 3D, Grace Kelly in a red dress, oh yes.

Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan

I have a new LG OLED TV. Cant watch anything else

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I am sure it is a Light Meter Avatar!

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

This is the way I'm currently leaning. Thanks to EVERYONE for sharing all your smarts with me.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Size and price of your LG OLED TV to give us an idea?

Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan

55 inch. Under 2k

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Even LG has dropped 3D with this years TV models.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-3d-201701044397.htm

Sad...

NorCal Bohemian

May I suggest an article that can be found at techconnect.com? It is titled "Streaming TV industry says "meh" to 4K, but it loves HDR" It is subtitled "Streaming video execs prefer better pixels to more of them, but will these two technologies ever be decoupled?" It is dated June 5th, 2017. You will need to put HDR, or copy and paste this title into the search box for it to come up. I would highly advise reading it before making a purchase. "HDR improves image quality by dramatically increasing contrast—the difference between the dark and light areas of a scene—instead of simply cramming more pixels into the same space. Increased contrast results in deeper blacks, more vivid colors, and increased levels of detail. It’s also enabling less-expensive LCD displays to compete with uber-expensive OLED displays."
I have a 2012 Panasonic Plasma (1080p)- their top of the line model. They were the only manufacturer that I am familiar with that used "levels of gradation" in their spec sheets. My model has 24,000 shades of gradation. Their mid-priced model was advertised as having 16,000 and their budget models came with 12,000. I can't compare that to other types or models - because no others give that information. I absolutely love my Panasonic - it has the best picture and color that I have seen! Also, plasma has a refresh rate of 600 Hz - far superior to the 60 and 120 available on many 4k's. Alas - plasma is dead. Panasonic has temporarily left the US market, but I've seen that they plan a late summer comeback with 4k HDR OLED's. One downside to plasma - that is unfortunately also true of OLED is image burn-in! I have to limit my viewing of CNN - because their damn bright logo starting being retained on my screen! Fox news used to have rotating logo that didn't burn-in - but they went static, also - but at least not bright red and white! Also of note, it has been written the the organic pigments used in OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) will fade with time. From a 2016 article on tech connect - "Then there’s a longevity issue. The electroluminescent materials used in OLEDs have a fixed lifespan. This is particularly true of blue OLEDs, which must be compensated for by using a larger volume of the material and varying voltage over the life of the TV. My contact at Universal Display Corporation claimed 50,000 hours for its OLEDs, but I’ve more often heard 20,000 hours or less. I was unable to obtain any hard information on decay in a normal environment. When I do, I’ll update this.
Assuming the latter, less optimistic 20,000 hour figure, you’re talking about 2.25 years of 24/7 viewing, or about 11 years at the 5 hours per day the Nielsen Corporation says that TV viewers average. Eleven years isn’t very long, especially when compared to the lifespan of older CRT TVs, so you might not want OLED if you plan on running your display in a kiosk or in a point-of-sale system. But for the average person (not as defined by Nielsen) buying a TV for home use, longevity is probably not an issue."
I hope that this information helps!

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Thank you. I did not know that OLED suffered from burn-in and lifespan problems, until you just informed me of that. So many things to consider. The good news is that I'm pushing 78 years old so I might burn out before the screen does. On the other hand, in ten years maybe TV will have advanced to the point that they remind why I went into the other room, and I will need that model.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Great Info. Thanks. You make a good argument for HDR instead of OLED for contrast and color.

As photographers we are far more critical of image quality in monitors and TVs than the general public. In my case, when I display my images on my 4K TVs I notice that they are very sharp, colorful, and contrasty. Good for the general public but not necessarily good for me if I am trying to show something I shot intentionally low in contrast. And there's not enough control given to lower contrast appreciably on these TVs. I found that nobody cares about this but an occasional photographer, by the way.