Winner of Gizmodo Australia’s Best TV Of 2014. Now with an amazing price for the panel that you’re getting, for the quality of the Ultra HD display and its colour reproduction and its adjustability. A truly up-to-date TV complete with Smart TV features.
Get $40 Store Credit if bought through eBay Click and Collect (HT @kazines)
Currently available on Ebay store too with the 10% discount for pickup
$779 at DSE THANKS salman679.
ummm, no it isnt. it all depends on the distance you are from the tv
yep, I like to watch from 30cm away…
At that distance you'll get widescreen eyes.
Bundle with laser eye surgery deal?
laser eye surgery is rubbish 3 prk surgeries and still cant see without glasses stay away!
Optimum distance to be seated for this TV is 1.16m
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relat…
That's a little too close for me.
Most 4K TV's upscale / interpolate lesser resolutions for more pixels, so at 4K you can look closer - even than "optimum" and I reckon it's ok for displayed upscaled full HD.
Best to test it out in the shop - but IMHO a 4K TV definitiely displays 1080 better than a normal HD TV.
You might be right, but you still have to settle for a tiny 40" TV.
You could instead get a 60" 1080p screen.
Not planning as using it as my new Google Glass
I sit approx. 90cm from my TCL 40" 4K/UHD 3D TV as a computer monitor and I'm loving the amount of desktop real estate. Alttough it is not 3D, this one is a tempting upgrade for the HDMI 2.0 UHD @ 60Hz.
I sit within 2 m of my 40" samsung
UHD TV is always welcome
The problem is, there isn't anything UHD
Lucky for you, 2m isn't close enough to distinguish any difference between 4K from 1080p at 40". 1.57m is where 1080p is fully discernable.
The range is 88cm (4K fully discernable) to 157cm (indistinguishable from 1080p)
Assuming 20/20 vision of course.
Within 2m can be anything from 0.0001cm to 200cm
If you want a more accurate number it is close to 150cm
Besides, if I'm watching a video clip on the TV, I might not be able to tell the difference.
What about games?
As I said, there is nothing in UHD
2m isn't close enough to distinguish any difference between 4K from 1080p at 40".
That's not necessarily true…
I take all my advice about anything to do with eyes from Steve Buscemi.
@Phreakuency: ah those poor(or lucky) bastards who can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps
@Phreakuency: The average human eye having visual acuity of 1 arc minute and the inability of the human eye to perceive arcminutes much smaller than 0.4 (and the very simple math to compute this based on resolution and viewing angle) are well known scientific facts. And not at all like console warriors pretending they can't perceive higher temporal resolution (eg framerate) — science doesn't back that one.
But hey, MOAR PIXELS!
If you really do plan on sitting 0.00-1.25m away, great!
The average human eye having visual acuity of 1 arc minute and the inability blah blah…
Not everyone is average though…
@SteveBuscemi: Science does back that you won't see any difference between 4k and 1080p at certain ranges.
40 inch UHD biggest waste of money.
UHD is best for 60 inch+
@jv: Hence 0.4, which is the limit of the human eye. That's 20/50 vision. That's well, well, well beyond average.
(David Attenborough voice) "And amongst the competing herds on the OzBargain Savannah one sees strong favouritism towards differing display panels, a bizarre show of machismo through consumerism, which is paradoxically feminine in all respects; in this instance the neophobe tribe led by stalwart SteveBuscemi, adamantly opposed against the newcomer 4K species shepherded by Phreakuency, square off to hurl insults at each other's audiovisual preferences, in much the same way Cape Buffalo might rally to defend a newborn, but obviously with no tangible consequences as we're talking about inanimate objects that have no consciousness."
"This ritualistic confrontation seems to satisfy some over-compensating urge amongst the OzBargain mammalia to vicariously live through their choice of consumer products, as a form of non-competitive competition; due to the fact that actual competition is abhorred by lifeforms on OzBargain for its necessitating leaving the safe proximity of their prized display panels, which function as extensions of their reproductive organs; thus attacks against display panels are held in the most heinous regard, as outright mockery of one's manhood."
I really wish the acuity zealots would cool their jets. That knowledge has been hideously overused.
The very simple fact is that you are, for the most viewing groups of pixels representing a source - and in that respect (particularly lines, obviously), you can discern higher resolution from further because you are not viewing 1 pixel lines, you are viewing digital representations of larger structures.
I often wonder if people who cite visual acuity have ever actually walked through a tv store. It's blatantly obvious what is 4k and what is not.
people said that stuff about phones
"720p is all we can see"
"1080p is as high as we need"
and now theres quadHD
in the end. regardless of science
things just look better
@SteveBuscemi: To be fair, Gizmodo valued this TV on its value as a MONITOR, not as a TV, so its viewing should be considered in terms of 0-1.25m away
Walking through a TV store, your aisle are generally less than 1.5m wide, so obviously you will be within the optimal viewing range for the 4K TVs. I don't think people are saying you can't see the difference between 4K and HD, just that in real life situations where the TV would be located further than 1.5-2m away from the viewer, the difference is indistinguishable.
@SteveBuscemi:20/50 vision is well below average visual acuity. It means on Snellen chart testing you need to be at 20 feet to read what the average person can read from 50 feet.
4k@40inch slightly better PPI than 1080p@20inch.
Stand ~1.5m away from a 20inch 1080p and you'll only just stop noticing the pixels, if my assumptions and (possibly terrible) math is correct, this indedicates that a 4k 40inch screen would indeed be worth it, especially when the alternayive is a 1080p screen. Down side will be scaling, txt side and other various things may need to be increased slightly for reading from a distance.
Someone correct me if any of my logic here is wrong.
nice copy and paste haha
$150 cashback? edit: no cashback on 40" model
LG is running a UHD promo, $150 cashback for 4k tv's 48" up.
http://www.lg.com/au/promotions/UHDpromotion/index.jsp
Goodguys has the 55" version for 1650~ so 1500 after cashback.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/LG-40UB800T-40-101cm-UHD-LED-LCD-…
$40 store credit if you buy from ebay and click & collect
Even at this price it's still the around the average price $799, Wait for the 10% off on ebay guys if you can get it on there. This is also a really poor effort at a post man copying and pasting
Sure I negged this earlier on?
Oh that was was the DSE deal
Wait a minute, is this any better?
Not really. 4K prices are tumbling
What was $4K will soon be $4C (Roman "C")
I'm glad prices are coming down. Can't wait for a good deal on a 55" 4K TV.
We don't need 4k TVs there's no supportive content which is a waste.
Who is "we"?
him and his 1080p tv
Yeah, I bet he's bitter, jealous and poor!
This might work as a nice big computer monitor!
seems to be 60Hz as well which was always a problem with those cheap seiki ones: http://lifehacker.com/a-bigger-screen-for-less-money-use-a-4…
Regardless of perception, I'm curious to know what people who are buying 4k tvs are displaying in 4k?
are displaying in 4k?
They all display in 4k, that's what they are made to do…
They only display in 4k if they are fed a 4k source, a 4k resolution signal (native upscaling, withstanding).
Which brings me right back to my comment, what is the source they are displaying in 4k?
They only display in 4k if they are fed a 4k source
So if the source < 4K, the panels miraculously remove some pixels ?
@jv:
No, if the source is <4K, the result is a panel running in non native resolution and scaling the image by using multiple pixels to show what is generally a single pixel on a (lower resolution) display.
It's not the same.
@jv: Sort of yeah, tried turning down the resolution on your monitor from 1920x1080 to 1080x768 anytime recently? It's not the removal of pixels rather the reduction of.
It's not the removal of pixels rather the reduction of.
The number of physical pixels is still the same…
@jv: What you're arguing is pixel density in a pixel'ess world. If everything we were viewing was in low res, it wouldn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that whilst most content today that is considered 'hd' is 1080 that won't always be the case and it certainly isnt to a gamer's perspective where higher res is a godsent to improved acuity
@jv:
That means nothing.
The physical pixels are only utilised to produce an image that represents a source encoded in 1920x1080 - ie, there are pixels on the screen that are displaying the same value as their neighbours.
There are only 1920x1080 unique pixels.
If you encode an mp3 in 64kbit and play it on a crappy pair of speakers and then a good pair of speakers, you do not miraculously get the same results on the good pair as you would if you were playing a 128kbit source.
First and foremost, the source controls the quality, not the display.
There are only 1920x1080 unique pixels.
So how do they display 3840 x 2160 when there are not that many pixels ???
The link about states :
4K ULTRA HD RESOLUTION
With 8.3 million pixels
@LordRichington: I'd very much agree with the last sentence, and if I were to say I'm watching something in 4K, I'd be referring to the source, not the display. If the source was 1080p, I'd merely be watching something on a 4K display.
First and foremost, the source controls the quality, not the display.
Play the same source then on Sony, LG, Samsung, Soniq, Kogan and Bauhn and then post back if you still think that statement is true…
The panel and engine is just as important, if not more important, to what you can see…
Upscaling
and ???
A top brand Ultra HD TV can upscale to 3840 x 2160 to get a noticeably better picture than a HDTV…
@jv:
Not even close.
Go play a youtube video in 240p, 480p, 720p and then 1080p
The source is king.
Televisions do differ, yes, but the source is by far the difference.
@jv: I believe display referred to display resolution here, not to the manufacture quality of the panel?
Go play a youtube video in 240p, 480p, 720p and then 1080p
The source is king.
Play 1080p on a Sony, then a Soniq and you will see that the same source will give you different quality…
@jv: I'd even go as far as to say that a 1080p source on a high quality FHD panel can be of better quality than a 4K source on a cheap UHD display, but was that really the point?
but was that really the point?
yes, the engine and the panel can make all the difference, using the same source…
@jv: Just like the source can make all the difference using the same panel. To me, neither is more important. Both are equally important. That doesn't change, however, that if I'm watching a 1080P source on a 4K display I'm not watching anything in 4K, I'm merely watching something on a 4K display.
The point is for him to argue and never really win, but exhaust all who oppose him :-)
I've been exposed !!! (please view link in UHD)
@jv:
Would that I could, my friend - I'm afraid I've been poring over visual acuity formulas and discovered that my eyes defy physics.
I'm planning on checking myself into the nearest insane asylum, as soon as possible.
A good 4K TV can upscale the displayed image - at least by interpolating between the pixels to display a better looking picture. In addition, there can be algorithms to "sharpen" the picture, anti-alias, remove noise etc.
Sure, 4K resolution content will look better than a lower res source, but 1080 definitely looks better through a 4K set. Confirm by testing at the store.
This is misleading.
1080p TV's also sharpen etc
4k resolution barely looks better then 1080p with 1080p videos when you compare it with a similar quality TV.
People have these old 1080p TV's and get 4k TV's and think its the 4K making a difference when its actually just the new TV.
4K and HDTV's have internal video engines that do A LOT of fast and intelligent processing, including frame interpolation, upscaling, sharpening, noise reduction etc - to improve the quality of the viewed picture. They vary in cost and quality, but as per LG's page http://www.lg.com/au/tvs/lg-40UB800T#:
"With the 2014 Ultra HD Engine Upscaler, all content is powerfully upscaled for clearer, more striking images. (*Image quality of upscaled content will vary based on the source resolution.)"
Ie, close up (because that is what you buy a 4K TV for), I believe that side by side, they can display a discernibly better 1080 picture - but one shouldn't buy unless they can see it's better.
Netflix on PS3?
PS3 can't output in 4K…
Dammit, for some reason I was under the impression it could.
UHD is the new marketable gimmick…like 3D was a few years back. I'm surprised that LG couldn't include 3D in this model…would otherwise have been the perfect replacement to my Bravia 40" which requires external inputs to become 3D ready.
Disappointing, but a half decent price.
I couldn't disagree with this comment stronger. The fact of the matter is the disappointing production of passive at-home 3d is nowhere comparable to what 4k represents to the market. 4k in itself definitely presents more open-ended future-proofing than buying a lower quality 1080p tv/monitor in todays market.
I both agree and disagree with you on this
4K, at this stage possibly represents early adoption and that generally means a price premium that possibly outstrips its virtues over that of future proofing.
I have an oculus rift. I'm not future proofing myself by buying it - I'm getting the experience of 3d now, rather than later.
Still, I take your point. However - if I were to buy now, I'd go 1080p. Doesn't quite yet feel like the time.
Future proofing, absolutely. Infact, any newer model on top of this TV that's UHD is arguably "future proofing" with newer bells and whistles put into TVs every year.
UHD is the new marketable gimmick
I guess you haven't had the opportunity to compare the pictures in store then…
You'd be wrong there. I own a 28" UHD monitor that I bought exclusively for my photography work. The image quality is amazing…still doesn't make me withdraw my above comment. Future-proofing "4K" or not, of what use is it now and potentially in the next 1-2 years?! The upscaling quality difference between brands isn't noticiable to my eyes, so playing PS4/XB1 upscaled to 4k looks just as good as it does on a mid-range FHD LED/LCD TV at 1080p. In other words, no difference or benefit. In fact, there's a good chance we'll need to wait for the PS5 and the next-gen Xbox before 4k gaming is a reality. On the other hand there's the question of availability of content…recorded and made available digitally or at retail in 4k. How much of this is in existence right now? Sweet FA. You may say don't judge it because its brand new to market…Well, 3D isn't.
3D has been around for years now. Go and find me top-shelf quality TV shows or movies that are made available in 3D blu ray that are not digitally animated films like Ice Age and Bolt? You'd be limited to 1 or 2 handfuls of movies including Avatar, Transformers, Clash of the Titans etc. There's barely ANY quality 3D content available TODAY for a technology that WAS the next big thing/fad YEARS ago. I'm all for 4K and pushing the limits of technology to get a better quality and viewing experience - but for now and possibly the next couple of years, it's just the new "fad" on TVs. Look at how much those greedy BIG brands out there wanted to charge you for the new curved TVs and UHD at 60+" or above: $20K+ on release! What a joke. As i said, this is a good price…but if you've bringing out the latest stuff, why not throw in the 3D functionality?
as a tv it is probably pointless but I bought one a couple of weeks ago to use as a computer monitor and it works damn well for that
Just buy the damn TV if you want/need/like it. Like it's a decision of life and death.
Mind you a 32" ips from dell/asucks/NEC would cost you thousands. Sure it's calibrated like hell on all color spaces… but the $$$$. No brainer if you were looking at one of those nasty tn 4k monitors going for roughly the same price.
4k is almost perfect for Google VR, other than that… meh.
I'm sure this TV was only ~$630 at the good guys during the recent 20% sale on the ebay store.
It was. Bought it at $629.60 and am using it as a monitor. I had to upgrade the video card, power supply and the PC case (to suit the long video card). So, factor that in if you are buying this.
Nice. What graphics card? Gaming at UHD resolution at 60Hz? How is it?
I am also interested in your feedback. Can it do 4k 4:4:4 @ 60Hz? Any other thoughts? I have been using a Seiki 39" 4k TV as a monitor for the last year and it is the perfect size and resolution except 30Hz is really frustrating, looking to upgrade.
I was interested in this too. A thread on WP references some Amazon reviews where customers have said that it won't do 4k@60hz with 4:4:4 chroma. I couldn't find anything in the official manual either, almost no technical details in there at all
@pbjabba: Thank you for your feedback, I will give it a miss then. If it can't do 4:4:4 then its a deal breaker for me as it is mostly used for web, programming, Excel etc… My Seiki has amazing image quality but only at 30Hz. Is it too much to ask for 40" 4k 4:4:4 @ 60Hz with display port and G-Sync or FreeSync? The closest thing I have seen is the Phillips BDM4065UC but it doesn't have any adaptive sync technology.
@samlor: I get a large delay (input lag) when moving my mouse around. I have tried several things to fix it without any luck and believe it is just how the Seiki works. No issues with 30Hz itself for web, programming and even video playback. I would guess your TCL has less input lag making 30Hz usable. No input lag on the Seiki when set to 1080p.
@martology: This is what I'm waiting for:
http://www.seiki.com/company/news/2014-06-25-Seiki-CE-Week-4…
@martology: The TCL was unuseably laggy at 4K/UHD until I enabled graphics/gaming mode. Does the Seiki not have some equivalent feature/capability? Details can be found in this comment https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/2210857/ and others from that deal.
I'm using the ASUS GTX970 STRIX and confirm that it cannot display 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4 chroma. Text will have colour halos around them and look horrible.
It is great at 4k@30Hz which is the setting I use. I do not game so that is not an issue. I use it to work with very large spreadsheets and looking at my digital photos. Photos on this monitor look fantastic.
Lol 4k at 40" is a waste