UHD vs FHD TV question

17
Found 20th Jul
Hi all,

I've moved into a shared house and renting one of the rooms. I need to get a TV and am looking at something about the 43" mark and will be watching around 6' away. My question is should I be looking at UHD or FHD for these kind of requirements?

Picking up FHD I can save around £50 and wondering if at this size UHD is even worth it.

Thanks
Community Updates
Ask
17 Comments
Depends if you intend to use inputs that supply 4K/UHD?
Edited by: "CelestialLegend" 20th Jul
CelestialLegend7 m ago

Depends if you intend to use inputs that supply 4K/UHD?


I suppose I may do e.g. Netflix, or indeed in the not too distant future once 4K is more common place

Do TVs suffer issues displaying regular FHD content if they're UHD models (kinda like PC monitors do)?
I upgraded mainly for games, though I've found streaming to be disappointing (low framerates and occasional buffering) and without SkyQ the only other providers are Netflix and Prime which both have quite limited content to justify anyway.

I bought a 49" Sony and wished I'd got at least the 55" tbh to make more of the UHD benefit, but if you find a few TV's you like use rtings/trustedreviews/hdtvtest etc to see if the TV is good for what you want it for.
Okay thank you for that
I dont plan on a console any time soon other than the Switch, as play games on my laptop mainly

I wont keep UHD at the top of my priorities for this purchase then
Viewed from 6ft on 43" screen = no resolution benefit of UHD over FHD, although other features of a UHD set may be beneficial. Maybe put the £50 saved against your TV licence, assuming you intend to watch live TV / licence-reqd content.
AndyRoyd16 m ago

Viewed from 6ft on 43" screen = no resolution benefit of UHD over FHD, …Viewed from 6ft on 43" screen = no resolution benefit of UHD over FHD, although other features of a UHD set may be beneficial. Maybe put the £50 saved against your TV licence, assuming you intend to watch live TV / licence-reqd content.


That's what I thought, thanks. I'm not sure what other features there might be i'm missing out on though? I think this Tv would be perfect Netflix and the Switch, and some occasional freeview TV
Fortunately the landlord sorts out the TV licence for us so no need to worry about that
I also found a FHD TV from Costco for £230 with 5 year warranty, which sounds a lovely price tag
DUNOEboutTENG15 m ago

That's what I thought, thanks. I'm not sure what other features there …That's what I thought, thanks. I'm not sure what other features there might be i'm missing out on though? I think this Tv would be perfect Netflix and the Switch, and some occasional freeview TVFortunately the landlord sorts out the TV licence for us so no need to worry about thatI also found a FHD TV from Costco for £230 with 5 year warranty, which sounds a lovely price tag


Feature example: even some recent FHD sets will not natively play x265/HEVC content and / or 10bit versions of same, but you may not need such support.
Polite suggestion: absolutely satisfy yourself that landlord has correctly interpreted TVL requirements, more importantly: ll will cover any investigation, defence & satisfaction obligations. In general, HMO / shares require TVL for each tenant if each tenant has an individual tenancy agreement, but interpretation not critical if you have credible confirmation that ll will cover any investigation, defence & satisfaction obligations.
AndyRoyd18 m ago

Feature example: even some recent FHD sets will not natively play …Feature example: even some recent FHD sets will not natively play x265/HEVC content and / or 10bit versions of same, but you may not need such support.Polite suggestion: absolutely satisfy yourself that landlord has correctly interpreted TVL requirements, more importantly: ll will cover any investigation, defence & satisfaction obligations. In general, HMO / shares require TVL for each tenant if each tenant has an individual tenancy agreement, but interpretation not critical if you have credible confirmation that ll will cover any investigation, defence & satisfaction obligations.


Thanks for the heads up, I'll double check with him to make sure in that case
There is a constant thread that says UHD is no better than FHD unless you have your nose up against it at 43 inch.
I disagree. I believe most people who say it are quoting hearsay or are video purists.
I have just bought a 43 inch UHD tv for the bedroom and the picture is far better although I accept only when watching HD channels as the TV upscales FHD and does give a much better picture.
When it comes to 4k it is even better still and if you have HDR it again improves.
I accept it is not as good as my 49 inch SAMSUNG ks8000 especially on HDR but it is far better than the sony FHD TV I had before in the bedroom.

People who say you cant see a difference between FHD and UHD forget the TV is upscaling. My sammy picture is nearly as good with FHD as it is with UHD that is because it is superb at upscaling, put 2 tv's side by side and you will see a difference even at 43 inch.
spectra704551 m ago

There is a constant thread that says UHD is no better than FHD unless you …There is a constant thread that says UHD is no better than FHD unless you have your nose up against it at 43 inch.I disagree. I believe most people who say it are quoting hearsay or are video purists.I have just bought a 43 inch UHD tv for the bedroom and the picture is far better although I accept only when watching HD channels as the TV upscales FHD and does give a much better picture.When it comes to 4k it is even better still and if you have HDR it again improves.I accept it is not as good as my 49 inch SAMSUNG ks8000 especially on HDR but it is far better than the sony FHD TV I had before in the bedroom.People who say you cant see a difference between FHD and UHD forget the TV is upscaling. My sammy picture is nearly as good with FHD as it is with UHD that is because it is superb at upscaling, put 2 tv's side by side and you will see a difference even at 43 inch.


You may have missed the context, where the context is visible resolution benefit. Additionally, you can upscale all you want but you can't replace / insert what is not present the source, although some processing may add a perception of improvement, just like tweaking a lesser-res set may do. Side-by-side compares many attributes - not just resolution, and that's the context that some peeps appear not to have grasped.
I may have missed the context, however if I think it looks better I am either imagining it or it looks better to me.
Perception is a wonderful thing.
My perception says it looks better than my FHD screen as I look at it through the eyes (pretty old I admit) of a viewer.
The mona lisa is after all just a series of brush strokes and if you look closely you can see them.
But my perception says it is a masterpiece.
The thought wood and trees comes to mind.
Edited by: "spectra7045" 20th Jul
spectra704513 h, 37 m ago

There is a constant thread that says UHD is no better than FHD unless you …There is a constant thread that says UHD is no better than FHD unless you have your nose up against it at 43 inch.I disagree. I believe most people who say it are quoting hearsay or are video purists.I have just bought a 43 inch UHD tv for the bedroom and the picture is far better although I accept only when watching HD channels as the TV upscales FHD and does give a much better picture.When it comes to 4k it is even better still and if you have HDR it again improves.I accept it is not as good as my 49 inch SAMSUNG ks8000 especially on HDR but it is far better than the sony FHD TV I had before in the bedroom.People who say you cant see a difference between FHD and UHD forget the TV is upscaling. My sammy picture is nearly as good with FHD as it is with UHD that is because it is superb at upscaling, put 2 tv's side by side and you will see a difference even at 43 inch.


You are as mad as a badger. A 43" 1080p TV showing a 1080p video verses a 43" 4k TV showing a 1080p video and trust me there will be virtually zero difference between the two. The 4K TV isn't clever enough to go and buy the 4K video for you and play it, it's still playing the same 1080p video. If a face is made up of 8 pixels in 1080p it isn't clever enough to make the face look sharper and imagine what the missing pixels should be when it pulls it over 32 pixels.
who said anything about 1080p videos (ie blueray) I was talking about my sky picture looking better.

Also I think I was saying, or meant to say, that even a 43 inch 4K television showing a 4k program looks better than a FHD television showing the same program in fhd.

I agree with you to an extent on upscaling there isn't a lot of difference on some sets but to me my sammy looks much better when it upscales but that may be because of the 1000 nits the wide colour gamut and all the other bells and whistles it has.

Even my 43 has WCG and other fancy tricks to help it upscale so the picture looks brighter as do the colours with a far better contrast then my old sony.

I believe a 4k video with hdr will look far better on a 43 inch TV than an ordinary non blue ray dvd and also better than a blue ray.
Well it does downstairs on my 49 inch sammy with all the "experts" saying that anything less than 55 inch isn't worth buying.
Rubbish
Edited by: "spectra7045" 21st Jul
spectra70453 h, 59 m ago

who said anything about 1080p videos (ie blueray) I was talking about my …who said anything about 1080p videos (ie blueray) I was talking about my sky picture looking better.Also I think I was saying, or meant to say, that even a 43 inch 4K television showing a 4k program looks better than a FHD television showing the same program in fhd.I agree with you to an extent on upscaling there isn't a lot of difference on some sets but to me my sammy looks much better when it upscales but that may be because of the 1000 nits the wide colour gamut and all the other bells and whistles it has.Even my 43 has WCG and other fancy tricks to help it upscale so the picture looks brighter as do the colours with a far better contrast then my old sony.I believe a 4k video with hdr will look far better on a 43 inch TV than an ordinary non blue ray dvd and also better than a blue ray.Well it does downstairs on my 49 inch sammy with all the "experts" saying that anything less than 55 inch isn't worth buying.Rubbish



I think what people are trying to say is you need to sit closer or increase the screen dimensions to appreaciate the jump in resolution. Increased colourspace i.e. contrast, colour, brightness and gamma on newer due to improvements in display technology have also come out of the UHD jump in TV tech.

Differences in panel technology also mean huge difference in visual appeal. Deep blacks aren't an issue for me as I love bright vibrant colour but someone might flip the desk at any hint of light bleed in their pitch black dungeon. Only creepy people watch a high end TV in pitch black room
Agree with kester.
The original question I think was would you see a difference between a 4k TV and an FHD TV at 43 inches.
An FHD showing 1080 DVD to my mind, and from what I have seen, will not be as good as a 4K tv showing a 4k video especially if it is HDR thanks to all the things Kester mentions.
Thanks for all the comments guys

I maybe should have been more specific in my initial post, but it's unlikely I will be watching/playing 4K films/games anytime soon, apart from maybe some Netflix but I think I can live with just FHD to save a bit of ££ in the short term
Like to think it'll be an upgrade from my 32" Technika in any case

And when it comes to getting a UHD TV when I move to somewhere in the future, I'd like to get something mid/top range as opposed to budget
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants