Solved! When did buying a TV become more complicated than building a computer

[unplanned bacon]

It's ridiculous, honestly.

You've got UHD (4K) which isn't even true 4K because4K is actually higher than 3840 x 2160, HDR 8 and HDR 10, OLED, LED, LCD, LG cheating with rgbw which is actually 3K, Samsung not listing refresh rates, but using PQI (a term they don't seem to have explained). And don't forget there's HDMI 2 now and HDCP 2.2 (yay for DRM making things harder when they should really be going after the countless websites on the web that spread their content better than the official channels). Then add in the half baked smart TV apps and software which usually get me thinking, why would you want this on your TV? Plus they're (many, but not all) still so expensive when a phone does more than they do at the same resolutions (well, 1440p and up) for as little as 1/2 the price.

When I bought my first one it was a choice of LED or Plasma. 720p or Full HD. Pick your screen size and make sure you're happy with contrast ratio and you're good.

Someone please ELI5 this stuff? To me it's more confusing than picking computer parts

 

[nzalog]

Yeah it's pretty bad, I've got a LG OLED B6P and it was quite a bit of a learning curve after I got it.

For example... because of the bandwidth limit of HDMI, I had to choose what was important to me.

If I wanted 4k and high Output Color Depth then I'd have to take a lower refresh rate like 30Hz. If I needed 60Hz I'd have to either lower the resolution or lower the color depth to get 60Hz.

 

[unplanned bacon]

Yeah it's pretty bad, I've got a LG OLED B6P and it was quite a bit of a learning curve after I got it.

For example... because of the bandwidth limit of HDMI, I had to choose what was important to me.

If I wanted 4k and high Output Color Depth then I'd have to take a lower refresh rate like 30Hz. If I needed 60Hz I'd have to either lower the resolution or lower the color depth to get 60Hz.

Yeah, colour depth wasn't even mentioned ever back when I got my current TV.
Also, they're talking about 5K and 8K now (CES and Apple) when they haven't even got 4K's standards sorted out yet (I read HDCP is still being sorted out and so is HDMI 2 and 2a) which raises the question, why are they selling 4K TVs if they'll be obsolete the second they've sorted this out?

 

[jsmithepa]

Is only complicated if you chase the latest (not necessarily greatest). Am gonna sit here, enjoying my 1080 and pay no attention to them until they work out the bugs and real 4k contents become available.

Smart is a non-issue, the resident members of this forum tell you to buy no-smart TV whether 1080 or 4K, smart should be ad-ons.

Judging from the daily postings, most people are still dealing with unable to plug in plain TVs to their soundbars.

 

[americanaudiophile]

Just to make your life even more complicated we now have to look forward to ATSC 3.0 over the air broadcasting, Dolby Vision and 8k (with new HDMI for it?).
In reality many video reviewers that purchased late model Pioneer and Panasonic plasma TVs still own them.
All the new TVs offer is mostly numbers that don't make a lot of difference (HDR is maybe the exception). They need to make up for basic limitations in the display technology and hold the cost of making panels down so they can compete with the third tier Chinese manufacturers that push them into lower and lower prices. Longevity is unimportant so you can't expect a reliable and long lasting product just a disposable one.

 

[unplanned bacon]

Is only complicated if you chase the latest (not necessarily greatest). Am gonna sit here, enjoying my 1080 and pay no attention to them until they work out the bugs and real 4k contents become available.

Smart is a non-issue, the resident members of this forum tell you to buy no-smart TV whether 1080 or 4K, smart should be ad-ons.

Judging from the daily postings, most people are still dealing with unable to plug in plain TVs to their soundbars.

I was sitting tight on a 24" 1080p TV having considered 4K many times and deciding it's too expensive to get a PC to game well at that level, then I thought maybe I'll do it this year (half seriously entertained the idea of using January sales to do that). Then it just so happened my TV seems to be beginning the decline (some of my threads should say what it's doing). None of my devices (PS4, 360 or PC) work properly with it anymore (and it is the TV at fault) so that sort of pushed my hand to look seriously.

If you search 4K, at least from what I get on Amazon, smart TVs are all that shows up. I didn't want to compromise resolution (I didn't compromise last time, but I lost out on screen size and number of ports). They are also huge, which is both good and bad, because on one hand screen size, on the other, my office room and setup will be dominated.

Is anyone able to explain the TV terminology to a noob?

 

[unplanned bacon]

Just to make your life even more complicated we now have to look forward to ATSC 3.0 over the air broadcasting, Dolby Vision and 8k (with new HDMI for it?).
In reality many video reviewers that purchased late model Pioneer and Panasonic plasma TVs still own them.
All the new TVs offer is mostly numbers that don't make a lot of difference (HDR is maybe the exception). They need to make up for basic limitations in the display technology and hold the cost of making panels down so they can compete with the third tier Chinese manufacturers that push them into lower and lower prices. Longevity is unimportant so you can't expect a reliable and long lasting product just a disposable one.

Will ATSC be a global thing? And with the 8K thing, I'm not that interested (very small part of me is curious). If my PC can not run it (or has no chance of running it without excessive spending/hardware changes). Decent to good 4K gaming can probably be achieved through a graphics card change, and graphics cards are getting cheaper, there is no point