The current disadvantages of this 4K tv particularly at this size far outway the advantages....

Would make a great high resolution PC Monitor.
'Future' proof (although even in the LCD sector I can see quantum dot becoming mainstream)
Decent upscaling of current 1080P content (subject to the television in questions Video processor)

Get your tape measure out, a 50" is marginal for 4K at just over 6 feet away.

Netflix Ultra HD is 15mbps, BT Ultra HD is 29mbps...the UK is struggling behind other European countries at around 20mbps average, and whilst change is at hand it is still a ways off....not to mention neither Netflix or BT Ultra HD are getting the best out of UHD with the compression, particularly Netflix Ultra HD.

It is improbable that any terrestrial 4K channels being broadcast in the future be via current satellite or aerial means, leading back to the current streaming problem.

True Ultra HD content will arrive in the form of limited 4K Blu Ray in the next few months, both players and media will be expensive.

If you can wait, give it 3-5 years by then either hopefully the true rival to OLED or the lesser LCD 'improvement' with quantum dot technology will be with us at sensible prices, and there will be an infrastructure in place for what really matters...content.

cool tv

Is this a vestel ? Great price

Great Tv at a good price but........ does it have HDR and HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 ?:smirk::sunglasses:

Seems a good tv with good specs. 3 hdmi, 3 usb slots. I like the sound of 'freeview play' that's new to me, but what's so new about that? We have iplayer itvplayer 4od etc so is there any other channels we can rewind back? It's not an android either so is that a good thing or not? I like Firefox though. And is it worth the price or should we be waiting for cheaper prices? Thanks

This looks like a really good deal. Richer Sounds listing gives more information here - http://m.richersounds.com/#!/product/pana-tx50cx680b

All 3 USB are HDCP 2.2 which is rare for a 4k TV this size under £600! I'm very tempted by this as am looking for a TV but still thinking I'll hold out for black Friday or Jan sales...

If only it was 55" or bigger

Hmm anyone know the Input delay on this?
I had my head on Android one but this decent price

Detailed review:

www.avforums.com/review/panasonic-cx680-tx-50cx680b-4k-ultra-hd-tv-review.11857

Looks good. Paid about the same for a 50" Sony 1080p TV about six months ago.

That's great cheers

ordered, paid same for my mums 720p Pana 5 year ago, this'll do for the next 5 - great find, HOT!

i was looking at an OLED in currys last night,samsung.
jeez the picture quality was mind blowing .£3500 i think it was.
but it was amost looks so good it looks fake .

I have been looking at this one and not sure whether to wait until black Friday or go for it now
I went into my local hughes tv shop and the assistant said don't buy a new tv that's not 4k but is it really worth the extra £££

Problem with viewing in any showroom is attempting to view at correct viewing distance as well as the less than realistic demo settings used in the bright lighting, few are calibrated correctly.

Likely an LG one. They do the bulk of them just now.

The guy who calibrated my current TV is not a huge fan of the LG OLED's. Too inconsistent for him.

But I think I've spotted my next TV. Panasonic have now jumped into the OLED market. And are showing LG how to do it by the sound of it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2015/09/03/best-tv-ever-hands-on-with-panasonics-tx-65cz950-4k-oled-tv/

By the time they release a flat version (because curved is pointless and does not wall mount well) and the price has dropped to an acceptable level (<£3k .... ish), that's when I'll jump. By then, 4k might even be worth having ....

That is good news, the more manufacturers behind OLED the better, I fear though with the cost of production with LCD...enhancing them with quantum dot technology being the cheaper option will win out...despite OLED being the true successor to plasma.

I agree, that is why I am a late adopter to plasma and with the warranty on it will gladly wait..after now having plasma I do not relish having LCD as a main set in the lounge even if it is 4K which to most is pointless right now.

Yeah. But Panasonic will make them for their top-of-the-line sets (like the one linked to above).

Much as they did with the VT & ZT plasmas. (My current is a calibrated VT)

No point paying early adopter prices. 4k isn't really worth having yet. Happy to hang on with the VT for a year or three yet .... :smiley:

(The quoting went mad on me ... hence why the post you've quoted has gone .... it kept jumbling it all every time I posted or edited it .... so in the end I gave up and deleted it)

oos

And it's gone :disappointed:

product not found

I have been reading all the comments above and still a bit confused. Why are stores selling 4k and people buying them if they are completely useless and there is hardly any content? Surely if 4k is only 100 quid or so more than a standard HD one its better to buy that? I need to get a TV by Jan as I am moving into a new place hopefully and wish to spend less than a £1000 on a TV at least 50 inches preferably 55 which will last me for years. Any advice would be appreciated.

Not always.

A lot more to overall performance than just the number of pixels. It's the digital camera argument all over again. A 10mp Canon DSLR is better than a 15mp Technika point and shoot.

Plus, remember a 4k panel takes a lot more grunt to drive smoothly. And given that one of LCD's biggest inherent problems is motion blur, this tends to be even worse on cheapo 4k sets as they're having to drive so many more pixels than a 1080p set.

Despite what others on here might say, a few Netflix programs (which are heavily compressed 4k anyway) and a single BT 4k channel, which only show a handful of genuine 4k sport events and can only be used if you have a decent fibre connection, do NOT constitute 4k being anywhere close to mainstream. That's years off yet.

If you're OK with LCD, some of the 4k offerings are now actually not too bad. For LCD based panels anyway.

If you don't like LCD (I don't), then I'd spend a bit less on a half decent 1080p and wait until the panel tech improves enough to do a good job with 4k. (aka - OLED becomes affordable)

The only people who insist 4k is a "must have" just now are the marketing people.

All the above refers to 4k for entertainment. If you're using it as a PC monitor, different rules apply.

(You can probably pick up a 55" version of whatever the current Sony W8 series is at now for quite a bit less than £1k. That would be my recommendation if you want a decent 1080p set without breaking the bank ....)

Thanks sancheez for the advice. I will have a think about it

Thanks for the advice. My viewing distance would be a few feet if that. Would a 50inch - 55inch 4K Tv be fine for that?

Yes, chart [here]

But also consider your usage, and what broadband speed you receive in your area. You may be happy with upscaled content in the meantime, but if you are expecting a wealth of 4K content currently just be aware of desired expectations against the reality.

Take heed of what Sancheez has said and re-read my advantages and disadvantages of 4K currently in post #13

Years off is it? Nov 18th is looking like you'll probably be eating our words...


Also, India is getting/got broadcast 4k (via satellite).

http://www.tatasky.com/wps/portal/TataSky/product/tatasky4k

I see buffy has been crying to the mods again and had my post removed! Ignore what the bloke (happy now mods) says he hasn't got a 4k TV and has admitted to never seeing one in action - a total Internet 'expert' of the highest order!

Facts are the graph that buffy wheels out when he simply cannot help ignore and has to post misinformation on EVERY SINGLE 4K TV DEAL is totally inaccurate! The distances shown are for how you will see ALL the additional detail from 4k, you will still see MORE DETAIL than a HD picture from further back than they show. Look at it like this, up close looking out of a window it looks pretty real doesn't it, that's because it is real but walk to the other side of the room and does it look any less realistic looking out? There's your answer.

As for Sancheez comment about lack of available material, there's 66 shows and movies available via Amazon Prime in the UK right now, Netflix has 12 shows shown in UHD along with 6 movies/docs/moving wallpaper so together there's heading on for around 500 - 1000 hours of viewing already sat there ready to go, BT are streaming sports in 4k and Sky are revealing their new wonderbox next week that industry experts are touting will support 4k along with multichannel recording and streaming. Also remember higher end TV models do a great job at upscaling HD too!

Ignore the naysayers, 4k is happening, the picture looks fantastic (I've had 4k for over 18 months and bought my parents one last month which they are loving too)- yes you won't be getting 4k for free for sometime yet but how long was HD out before the BBC committed to more than the BBC HD channel which to start with had extremely limited programming - I was a day one Sky HD subscriber too btw.

Quite simply if you keep attacking individuals in an immature manner you get posts removed or suspended, it's in the terms and conditions of the forum...do you follow? No? Clearly not. Who says I have not seen a 4K tv in action? You have a soundbar and think you know it all about AV Receivers and sound codecs, yet come out with inaccuracies there. Pot..kettle...black. And it is irrelevant to the discussion of current content, streaming problems and distance requirements anyway whether or not a user has, and is worthy of anyones consideration before making a purchase do you not think?


Trying now to change your tune where once you 'rubbished' the whole concept. How hypocritical, although you still do not understand the concept the further back you are the more detail blurs, with tvs there is a pixel density sweet spot, too far away pixels will merge so you do not see the extra detail, exactly the same concept with 720p and 1080p


So what is the point of posting about India as far as the UK goes? (that is great news..well almost) that have poor internet service, at least they are trying with Satellite...although not without picture break up problems causing a quarter of the screen to freeze due to it needing 4 relays. [here]

None of what you say affects anything currently lacking in the UK regarding 4K. Or what either myself or Sancheez have said in this thread....

There is nothing currently on Astra 28E for 4K or currently any boxes to receive, let alone even if there were currently anything from any of our terrestrial providers. BBC cannot even get dolby digital on all their BBC HD content, let alone have any coming soon infrastructure in place for 4K.

None of us are 'naysayers' you have this innate inability to understand that no one here is saying that 4K is not the future, just that currently there are disadvantages in being an early adopter...and just go off on a rant (usually ending up in self suspension) every time anyone has any criticism over its current state.

It is all very good listing the subscription based content currently available (including wallpaper!) but what good is that to those that cannot get the bandwidth for the less than premium bitrate content anyway? Would you like every consumer to just rush out and buy a 4K tv without knowing they may not be able to reap the benefits?

So lets go back to what I said earlier in post #13 which I have had agreement on (one of which you actually have agreed with in your rant, there is a first)....

The current disadvantages of this 4K tv particularly at this size far outway the advantages....

Would make a great high resolution PC Monitor.
'Future' proof (although even in the LCD sector I can see quantum dot becoming mainstream)
Decent upscaling of current 1080P content (subject to the television in questions Video processor)

Get your tape measure out, a 50" is marginal for 4K at just over 6 feet away.

Netflix Ultra HD is 15mbps, BT Ultra HD is 29mbps...the UK is struggling behind other European countries at around 20mbps average, and whilst change is at hand it is still a ways off....not to mention neither Netflix or BT Ultra HD are getting the best out of UHD with the compression, particularly Netflix Ultra HD.

It is improbable that any terrestrial 4K channels being broadcast in the future be via current satellite or aerial means, leading back to the current streaming problem.

True Ultra HD content will arrive in the form of limited 4K Blu Ray in the next few months, both players and media will be expensive.

If you can wait, give it 3-5 years by then either hopefully the true rival to OLED or the lesser LCD 'improvement' with quantum dot technology will be with us at sensible prices, and there will be an infrastructure in place for what really matters...content.

Who's changed their tune about the extra detail in 4k eh? I have always maintained the picture looks superior even from a distance!

As for broadcasting in 4k - November the 18th, stick that in your diary and we'll see what happens eh? Yes I doubt any of it will be free but then again there was only 2 free HD channels iirc when HD launched, one part-time (BBC HD) and the other a 'lifestyle' channel running on a rather naff bitrate!

Also just because I have an expensive soundbase that alone doesn't make me knowledgeable about cinema sound, I've had surround sound on TV's since 1994 fella and gone through several thousand pounds worth of gear since!

Btw if the UK's average is 20mbps then large swarms of the UK can experience 4k albeit compressed. I don't have any issues with Netflix's 4k service, its very impressive for relatively little money especially when shared across the family but what would you know about that eh?....

I know plenty enough to offer the pros and cons which people have thanked me for, of which you oddly criticise. Strange, very strange.

Commentget a room

So. The 18th has been and gone. Sky announce Sky Q. Which is UHD compatible. And will available "sometime" in 2016. No mention of price. Not much focus on 4k. In fact, it won' have ANY 4k content on launch. That will come "later" in 2016. And no doubt they'll charge plenty for it when then do introduce 4k.

Are you the same guy that told me (in the spring) I'd be eating my words when 4k bluray launched this summer? Haven't seen much fanfare about that one either. (Commercial launch for that is into 2016 now as well)

Thus far, no words have been eaten. In fact, I'm not even hungry.

It's not mainstream. It's nowhere close to mainstream. It won't be for a LONG time yet. If you want to keep telling yourself it is, feel free. Not my problem if you don't understand the definition of the word.

When it finally is (my guess is 3+ years yet), then Panasonic 4k OLED will probably have advanced even further (already better than all the LG offerings apparently) and come down in price ..... and thats when I'll buy one.

(PS .... you're miles out with your guess about "large swathes" of the UK having enough bandwidth to stream 4k. Maybe 20% if you're lucky.)

Yeah didn't announce much, only that Entertainment, Movies and Sports will be arriving in 4k later in 2016, that's still considerably closer than you claimed isn't it!

Also no I wasn't the guy who claimed 4k Blu Ray would be here by summer, I did however tell you the standards has been set last summer when you claimed they hadn't, the original shipping date was supposed to have been this month but is looking like January now for the 1st model which will be from Samsung.

Also don't get your hopes up of Panasonic doing much in OLED without LG, 1, they use LG OLED panels in their sets currently and 2, LG are so far ahead of the pack in OLED manufacturing that it's unlikely anyone else will overtake them for quite sometime.

Only 20% have the needed broadband speed for 4k
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/11138376/Average-UK-broadband-speeds-up-as-digital-divide-narrows.html

Aye OK fella.....

LG make the panel. Panasonic produce the controller board and firmware. Thats a big chunk of difference. The guy who calibrated my plasma had done 4 LG OLED's at that point. He mentioned if they were his, two of them would have got sent back as the picture wasn't consistent enough. (This guy - http://www.convergent-av.co.uk/about.html - I'l take his view over anyone on this board ...)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2015/09/03/best-tv-ever-hands-on-with-panasonics-tx-65cz950-4k-oled-tv/

And we're in early days here. By the time I buy one, I expect them to have improved even further. And stop being curved. PLEASE stop being curved!

And you need to stop looking at countrywide averages for broadband speeds. That average is pushed up by cable (Virgin) and the fibre offerings for those that have it.

This: http://www.broadband.co.uk/pressreleases/UK-broadband-speedtest-results-October-2015.pdf

Will give you a slightly more accurate picture. Of the major providers, Virgin way above the rest (pushing the average up). No-one else clears 20Mbps. BT only average 18Mbps because of those on fibre. PlusNet are sort of close. The rest? Nope. Well, maybe if you live right next door to the exchange. A few of the specialist ones also clear 20Mbps. But not all of those are available at consumer level and I have no idea how they're priced.

Plus, you have to factor in the strain it will put on ISP infrastructure if everyone capable of streaming 4k suddenly actually started doing it. That would chew into bandwidth in a big way and would push averages down. In short - we're not currently in a position where they could cope. (look at the time of day split on page 3 of that report - it already drops in peak time)

(Note - I work in IT, specifically doing a lot of network, load and performance testing. Trust me. UK ISP infrastructure would not cope ...)