4K TV vs. OLED TV

Two new HDTV technologies are inbound this year. Which is more drool-inducing? And which will be worthy of your hard-earned cash?

(Credit: Geoffrey Morrison)

On one side, there's 4K: four times the resolution of your current TV. LG and Sony have committed to Australian launches, while JVC and others have all announced or shown upcoming 4K displays overseas.

On the other side, there's OLED: organic light-emitting diode. Significantly better picture quality than your current TV, plus lower energy consumption and even thinner cabinets.

So what's more exciting?

With 4K, there are many potential benefits. You can sit closer to your TV, for one, without ever seeing pixels and enjoy incredible levels of detail. (In fact, it's actually recommended for 4K viewing). Also, both the LG and Sony are passive 3D. With 1080p TVs, this means you get half-HD resolution per eye (1920x540 pixels). With 4K, you get 3840x1080 pixels per eye.

On the other hand, all upcoming 4K flat-panels are LCD. LG and Sony, both coming out this year, are edge-lit LED LCDs. As in, they is no local dimming. So all the negatives inherent in LCDs, like poor off-axis response, mediocre contrast ratio and so on, are all going to be present. Essentially, these are current-generation TVs, just with four times the resolution.

OLED, on the other hand, is a completely new TV technology. The contrast ratio potential is significantly higher than any modern technology: deep blacks that disappear in a dark room, whites that pop off the screen. It will be more realistic, with a better appearance of depth (even with 2D) than anything you've seen. Energy consumption should be lower than even LED LCDs. LG's55-inch OLED, still claimed to be on track for this year (although possibly shunted to one side for 4K), is 4mm thick. That's the width of a pencil. Essentially, OLED is the next-generation of TVs, but with current generation resolution.

The downsides of OLED? It's new, so there's likely to be teething problems. Longevity, historically an OLED issue, is still largely unknown (though, every company involved has said the new models will last as long as current TVs). And, of course, price.

Not that price should really enter into our dream comparison here, but current estimated prices on 55-inch OLEDs is somewhere close to US$10k. It's no better for 4K. LG's 84-inch 4K is US$19,999, whereas Sony's is US$24,999. Sony also has a 4K projector that costs roughly the same.

And, while I'm bringing this back down to reality, this is a false comparison on another level. Inevitably, there will be 4K OLEDs, but they're an even longer way off.

My pick? Without question OLED. A 1080p resolution is plenty for current TV screen sizes, and all the current content is 1080p. The image will be so much better than what's available now; it will put even the best 4K to shame. I'll even go one step further: I'll argue that, even at the same size, OLED at 1080p will look better and possibly even more detailed than a 4K LCD. How could I say such a thing? Several years ago, I did a face-off among seven HDTVs with different technologies: plasma, LCD, DLP and LCOS. The clear winner was a Pioneer Kuro plasma, which, when viewed from a normal viewing distance, received high praise about how detailed it looked. Here's the thing: at 1365x768 pixels, it was half the resolution of the other TVs in the face off (all the rest were 1080p). It did it by having more than twice the contrast ratio.

So, sure, with 4K you can sit closer or get an even larger TV, but like I argued in my "4K TVs are stupid" post, I don't think most people are going to sit less than 6 feet from their TVs, or get a 100-inch projector. For most people, including myself, I think OLED will be far more interesting.

But you don't have to take my word for it. I asked the top TV reviewers from around the Web. Here's what they had to say:

David Katzmaier, senior editor, CNET:

"OLED by a country mile; it's not even close. By my guess, the only 2D picture quality improvement 4K will bring is a slight increase in sharpness, and then it'll only be visible with the very best program material (native 4K content being ideal), at a screen size/seating distance ratio that's basically theatrical in scale. OLED should improve picture quality across the board, offering absolute blacks for effectively infinite contrast. I expect more consistent light output in bright scenes than plasma is capable of, without the viewing angle or uniformity issues of LED/LCD."

Brian Lam, editor in chief, TheWirecutter:

"I'd want 4k. It's astounding what that kind of resolution does for the details on larger screens. Like on hair and textures. We've already seen this jump at work on tablets and smartphones, too. It's a real change, albeit one that I don't think needs to come any time soon for most people. Myself? I'd be happy with one sometime in 10 years."

Chris Heinonen, senior editor, hometheaterhifi.com:

"The sole advantage of 4K is increased resolution, which we don't have content for now, and other aspects of the display could be worse than 1080p LCD displays. OLED offers potentially perfect black levels and expanded dynamic range, superior viewing angles, near-instant response times and even thinner displays than LCD can do, all of which current and future content can take full advantage of."

Al Griffin, technical Editor, Sound+Vision magazine:

"I'm more interested in OLED, mainly because of its picture quality and form-factor implications. I expect OLED TVs to deliver a true high-contrast picture, and to more seamlessly integrate with room environments than current "flat" TVs. 4K, at this point, seems more like a solution in search of a problem."

Adrienne Maxwell, video editor, HomeTheaterReview.com:

"While 4K will certainly have its benefits primarily in the front-projection realm, I'm more interested in seeing how OLED affects the TV business. Will OLED live up to its performance potential in real-world products? How much will it cost? Will the addition of a new high-end TV category help to stabilize an industry, in which a lot of major players are haemorrhaging cash? We'll see."

Gary Merson, editor, HDGuru.com:

"OLED. Why? I look at 4K the same way I look at full electric cars: you can buy one today, but the infrastructure is lacking. With 4K, there's no full standard for transmission and no serious sources. OLED will make all current material look better, with the potential of 4K resolutions later."

Dennis Burger, editor in chief of HomeTechTell:

"For me, the answer is pretty easy: OLED. It is, quite simply, the finest, most gorgeously rendered 1080p image I've seen to date, with ridiculous black levels and sumptuous contrasts, both of which are more important to my eyes than pure pixel count. The 4K sets we've seen so far are also LCD-based, and thus exhibit all of the motion issues that make my eyes feel floopy."

What do you think? Which technology has you readying your virtual wallet?

Via CNET.com



Add Your Comment 4


Post comment as
 

ras0406 posted a comment   
Australia

We have to be realistic. We don't even have 1080p content on TV to any great extent, and most people have only just finished upgrading to 1080p-capable TVs and Blu Ray players. Lets not forget that the majority of games consoles only utilise 720p games. So, unlike the initial switch to HD (720p and 1080p), there are no real drivers to switch to 4K and there don't appear to be any in the near future. On top of that, having owned a fe LCD TV sets, I'm not a fan of the shortcomings of LCD. So if it were my money, I'd probably go with OLED.

I'd consider making the switch to higher resolutions if we're talking about OLED or plasma with 4K.

 

dougaussie posted a comment   
Australia

I ask what is more akin to reality, ie when you look out a window what is the resolution of reality. So i'd go 4K. I want a TV that when it shows a waterfall you think your actually looking at a real waterfall, not a picture that has deeper blacks and contrast ratios. Rich people are going to buy the most expensive, the biggest and the best, sometimes that may not be the best.

 

plmkoh posted a comment   
Australia

If both were $10k, I wouldn't buy either and put my money into a pair of Sony AR1's instead. OLED isn't the be all end all paradigm of 1080p as it doesn't produce perfect colours nor have absolute pitch dark black at the moment, just grab any of Samsung's phones and you get a blue wash with black scars across the screen. And not without mention the 4k TVs are edge-lit, enough said. Now if we had Crystal-LED technology as the third contender, that's worth considering.

 

MitchellT posted a comment   

by the time we see 4K broadcasts in Australia, or even native HD broadcasts that look half decent on FTA (free view), 4K would be obsolete




Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products