Product Reviews

Should You Buy A 4K / Ultra HD Television?

Matt Smith 14-08-2013

About a decade ago, manufacturers started to sell what’s now widely known as an HDTV Vizio E320i-A0 32-inch Smart TV Review and Giveaway To test out whether a TV can be feature-filled yet affordable, I bought myself a Vizio E320i-A0 32-inch 720p 60Hz LED Smart HDTV, which came in at $288 ($290 at retail price). I tested it... Read More . These advanced televisions boasted resolutions of 1280×720 or even 1920×1080, with picture clarity far beyond what was previously possible. These high-resolution sets also made major progress in color accuracy and contrast. We’ve come a long way in the last ten years.


But now HD is old news, so the industry has decided to push another new technology; Ultra HD, also known as 4K HD. This new format, which offers a resolution of 3840×2160 (yes, the term “4K HD” is technically an exaggeration), has so far been reserved to super-high-end TVs, but some companies are starting to offer the technology for less than $2,000. So is the improved resolution a noticeable improvement, or just a marketing trick?

Ultra HD Isn’t Obvious, But Can Be Noticeably Better


A 1080p display contains a staggering 2,073,600 pixels, but 4K makes that look positively medieval with its staggering pixel count of 8,294,400. Yep, that’s right; these new 4K sets contain almost four times as many pixels as the best “HD” television.

One might think that would result in an obviously better picture, but in practice, that’s not always the case. That’s because the human eye has a finite resolution. Details that are too fine can’t be appreciated. The general consensus is that a person with 20/20 vision, viewing a 60-inch display, won’t see any benefit from 4K until they’re within 6 to 7 feet, and won’t notice the full effect until they’re within 5 feet.

Sit further away, and the benefits are lost; you’re unlikely to notice any difference between the two resolutions even if a 1080p television sits side-by-side with a 4K one. I’ve witnessed this personally, both at trade shows and in stores. HD was an obvious upgrade over what we now called “standard definition” content, but the jump to 4K isn’t as obvious.


That doesn’t mean there’s no difference, however. Large displays benefit greatly from 4K because the improved resolution can display a sharp image at a viewing distance of 10 feet even on displays over 120 inches. Unsurprisingly, all the 4K sets on the market today are quite large.

How Big A TV Will You Buy, Really?


Unfortunately, the fact 4K mostly benefits large televisions is its own problem. Most people can’t afford these large sets and, even if they could, don’t have room for them. A television over 70 inches is usually going to end up in a dedicated home theater Building A Home Theater System? Do It Right! 10 Crucial Mistakes To Avoid Do an image search for "home theater" and you’ll see photo after photo of huge, lavish theaters with seating for up to twenty (or more!) and giant screens. These ideals are every tech geek’s dream,... Read More , and the best-selling sets on Amazon are constantly 50 inches or less.

With sets this small, a viewer has to sit only a few feet away to see the benefits of 4K – and most people are never going to do that. The experience simply doesn’t jive with the average living room layout. At the least, most folks want a coffee table between their TV and couch, which necessitates a viewing distance of five or six feet.


As a result of this, Ultra HD makes the most sense for ultra-premium buyers. Not because the technology itself will always be expensive, but because the size of television needed to see a benefit at a normal viewing distance is beyond the size most people are willing to buy.

Content Is A Big Problem


Studios don’t have any issue filming in 4K, but delivering that content to consumer is another matter. Quadrupling the pixel count nearly quadruples file size, and a high-quality Blu-Ray disc can already take up 20 GB or more. The only content player on the market is Sony’s 4K Ultra HD Media Player, and it offers just a handful of movies, all of which are $7.99 to rent or $29.99 to buy. Oh, and one other thing – the player only works with Sony 4K televisions.

The lack of content mirrors the problems consumers faced early in the HD era. When the first HDTVs hit the market,there was no physical format for HD movies and very few people had the bandwidth or hardware necessary to stream it. This problem was not fully solved until several years later, leaving early adopters with little to watch. We’ll likely see history repeat itself with 4K.


What About 4K (And 4K-ish) Monitors?


The push towards Ultra HD displays is not restricted to televisions. Monitors are also starting to head in this direction, with ASUS now offering a 31.5-inch 4K monitor and Samsung planning laptops with 3,200×1,000 panels. Other monitor manufacturers like Dell and HP are sure to jump in on this trend soon.

In theory, monitors could benefit more from Ultra HD than televisions. They’re used at a much closer distance, which means the difference in resolution is more readily noticed. And they’re often used to show very fine details (like small font). A massive jump in resolution could make for buttery-smooth text rendering and wonderfully detailed photos.

But there’s a problem. Scaling. A computer’s operating system renders graphics based on height and width in pixels. Increasing resolution without increasing display size makes everything look smaller, which in turn can make certain programs and documents very hard to use. Unfortunately, there’s no obvious solution to this issue. Windows has scaling options, but they generally apply only to the Windows interface and Windows 8 apps, not desktop software. PC web browsers are universally bad at scaling. And old software sometimes fail to scale at all.


The viability of these new Ultra HD monitors is in the hands of companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple. Scaling must improve for them to catch on, and only these companies are in a position to make that happen.

Avoid 4K For Now

4K is already available at affordable prices. Seiki sells 4K displays as small as 39 inches for as little as $699, and others will likely follow their lead. But with little content available, and a lack of readily apparently benefit in small displays at the distance most people view television, Ultra HD doesn’t make a lot of sense to the average person. There’s plenty of awesome 1080p televisions on the market, so the best move is wait a few years and jump on board when the technology is more widely adopted and content is readily available.

Image Credit: John Karakatsanis/flickr

This review contains affiliate links, which pays us a small compensation if you do decide to make a purchase based on our recommendation. Our judgement is in no way biased, and our recommendations are always based on the merits of the items.

Related topics: 4K, Buying Tips, Television.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Sarah
    May 26, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Thanks for your article.
    Really helpful even 2 yrs on

  2. Jodie Zammit
    November 1, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Just cause I notice things like this, I had to point it out. Regarding the 4K HD name. Perhaps the 4K isn't so much related to the resolution, but the pixels. I noticed that the pixels in 4K KD are exactly four times that of the old tech. xx

  3. Bill B
    August 16, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Is there not something of a Catch-22 in the conclusion of this article? The recommendation is to avoid 4K until it is more widely adopted. If a sufficient number of people follow that recommendation, then 4k will not be widely adopted. At best, it will remain a technology used only in highly specific applications by an extremely narrow customer base.

  4. Roelof
    August 16, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Hey, you left out the REDRay 4K player! Superior to Sony too.

  5. Richard T Lennox
    August 16, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I am sorry... But you failed to cover the importance of Apple's retina display throughout it's mobile line. While the focus of the article was consumer level HDTV, what is going on in mobile devices needs more than a dismissive section in the article. Hope to see a separate entire article on how awesome retina display is, 266 dpi, from the previous 30 years of living with 72 dpi on computer screens... On a par with what happened to the print publishing industry when postscript and 300 dpi. laser print tech hit it. Oh, sorry that was probably before you were born (1985)

  6. Joseph L
    August 15, 2013 at 10:23 pm


  7. Saturday Sazaran
    August 15, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    It's easy to overlook the simple benefit of being able to watch 3D movies in 1080p.

  8. Simon S
    August 15, 2013 at 1:57 am

    Apple already offers pretty good scaling, by working with "points" instead of pixels.

    At that point, only bitmap images are a barrier.

    • Brian
      August 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm

      I'm extremely rarely inclined to comment on a post, however I love Makeuseof and figure my 2 cents may be helpful to some here... I completely disagree that Content is the big problem. With a good upconvert, 1080p content looks staggeringly better. The claim that you have to be within 7 feet to notice a difference is just, um well, not true for 20/20 vision at least when it comes to displays of 50+ inches. Interestingly enough, I do agree that it is not time to buy 4k. The biggest issue is price. Getting proper upconvert, and a good brand still costs over 4k. I'd like to think i'm not that huge of a brand nazi, but Seiko just doesn't count (again see proper upconvert). I do applaud Seiko for, what will probably, destroy the current price point though, major props.

  9. likefunbutnot
    August 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    The Seiki 40" panel is a really nice computer display. You need a DisplayPort to take advantage of it (HDMI doesn't have the bandwidth), which means it's not all that great for A/V applications - but it's unbeatable if you have a developer or content-creator's need to get a lot of pixels on a screen so you can do work. Color fidelity isn't fantastic on that panel, but since they cost less than many 27" 2560x1600 displays, it's still a pretty good compromise.